notl4wy3r

Granted that the innocent should not be shot. I don't think you'll find anyone to take the other side of that argument. Nonetheless, the question of "proving" guilt does not even enter into the consideration when the police are initially encountering a suspect. At that point it is about restoring order (making sure everyone is safe) and beginning to gather evidence. The notion "proof" having relevance in the initial police encounter with a civilian is the portion of the comment I was reacting to.

> 911 is an open API with no authentication. It cannot possibly prove guilt. Therefore, in a society which values innocence absent proof of guilt, police are bound to treat anyone they encounter by dint of information from 911 as innocent.

No, "innocence absent proof of guilt" is a courtroom standard. Police encountering suspects do not apply the same standards of evidence as a courtroom.

I guess my point was, by demonstration, that nitpicking little aspects of the articles we link here is without positive value. I'd have been wiser to leave my comment unwritten, but sometimes I can't help myself.

I provide my own insulation by spending much less than I make, and saving the rest. I have decades of savings at my current rate of spending. I'm about as safe as a person can be in this world.

My company has been paying me very competitively for more than a decade. I'm not worried about settling down here, but nobody else will make me a higher offer, at least not without requiring much more of my time than where I am at.

Even if nobody was using scummy tactics, it'd be hard to compete. There are so many people who want to make video games. Hell, I wanted to, before I got my "boring" BigCo job. Personally, I'm really glad I decided not to make games. I like the safety a regular income brings. Maybe once I hit my number I'll make some games, and we'll see if I'm any good at it.

In the meantime, I have nothing but admiration for those of you who actually do it before having independent financial security. I can't say I think it's wise, but I am a beneficiary of the massive numbers of talented people working in your field.

> . . . grammatical errors..

Normally we only put one period at the end of a sentence.

In the US, cash must be accepted as payment for (edit: public) debt. However, there is no requirement that all transactions must accept all legal tender. A business owner can refuse to enter into a commercial relationship with you on the basis of your method of payment.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...

Maybe people are optimizing for considerations other than their career?

You cannot use a jammer of any kind in the United States, for almost all values of you, including state and federal penal agencies. https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement

I wasn't trying to make a normative statement (should vs. shouldn't), just an indicative one.

I don't get paid more when CPC goes up, either. Pay is related to the value of the work done, but it is not yoked to it. An important additional factor is how much it costs to convince someone to work for you. For some reason, this is a unpleasant concept for a lot of people, even though these people in turn shop for deals at stores and on professional services.

I am not assuming. The article contains evidence that it is useless vis a vis block or custom handwriting.

Of course not, but some non-zero eventual utility is a desirable trait. There are a variety of actually beneficial things children could spend their time doing, which are currently being displaced by being forced to learn a useless handwriting style.

For example, one possible reason to sign a CLA is if you want to contribute, and the repository owner will not allow you to do so otherwise. It may be that you value contributing more highly than what license later versions of the code use. At least for me, that would typically be the case.

Unfortunately, reality contains a lot of victims, and they deserve more help than they get. A realistic mindset is a mindset that is cognizant of victims. And it is untrue that this process -- of becoming aware of our advantages, and the needs of others -- is unproductive. C.f. the ACA, social security, medicare, medicaid, and surely more backstops like these in the future.

You'd think that you'd work at a restaurant a little while before trying to start one. Learn the ropes a bit, etc. That has got to help with your chances of success.

Presumably each company will have their own approaches to these issues. They don't prima facie seem to be issues that require legislation. In that sense, "we" are not having a dialogue about this at all, any more than "we" are having conversation about cyclist detection, because "we" are not building self-driving cars. Waymo, Cruise, etc. are building self-driving cars, and we are not privy to their internal deliberations on these issues.

TBH, your objection seems like something that anyone would think of in ten minutes of considering pitfalls. To think that no one at Waymo (or Cruise, or Lyft, etc.) has considered it, you must have a very dim view of their competence.

> Do you ever find the multiplayer game inaccessible for anyone below Masters/Diamond tier?

Three quarters of players are below masters/diamond, so presumably it's reasonably accessible even below those tiers.

> I've always been able to compete at an average level in most ranked multiplayer games, but it seems with SC/SC2 it's always one end of the spectrum or another.

What do you mean by this? No matter how good you are, unless you're the very best, you're going to get to the point where you win about half your games in SC2, as with any other 1v1 zero-sum match-made game.

One time I was biking behind a man who flipped off a pickup truck after it did something inconsiderate on the road. Then driver of the truck tried to ram him and almost succeeded. That really brought home to me that there are contexts where expressing your anger can be really counter productive, no matter how justified it is.

> Do DNSs "support" every website they host?

Yes, in the sense we use in the tech industry where we say we "support" a particular use case -- i.e. enable it/allow it to happen.

> I do think supporting free speech and earnest dialogue is a social responsibility.

I don't. Or, rather, I think it exists in a constellation of other social responsibilities, and is subordinate to some others.

I would definitely be less comfortable if corporations were generally taking pro-hate or anti-factual stances. But since they're generally taking anti-hate or pro-factual viewpoints, I'm good with it. I think this is one of those cases where it's very hard to separate "my political views" and my epistemic or ethical views. To the extent that the latter two are part of my politics, you could say that they are political views, but I think there is more to it than that.

There are other political views I oppose where I would want corporations to allow those views to be expressed on their platforms. For example, I'm opposed to a lot of economic conservativism. But I don't see it as being anti-epistemic, and I don't think corporations should suppress those viewpoints. Fortunately, that's not what is happening. I would be shocked if anyone had ever been banned from Twitter, Facebook, or Google News for promoting these sorts of views.

So the problem here is that all views are political in a sense, but views are not merely political. It's not rightist political views generally that are being suppressed. It is other, more specific types of views that tend, at this point in time, to be associated with the right.

There are plenty of options in the modern era to promulgate your views without the support of any company. You can host them on ipfs, print them out and paste them as flyers, etc.

Companies do not owe it to you to let you promote your views using their infrastructure. Maybe it is in their best interest, or the best interest of their users, or maybe not. But historically, we have valued companies' (and, transitively, company owners') free speech rights too much to force them to promote views as common carriers. There are of course a few exceptions to this where there is a compelling public interest, but you're going to have an uphill battle to prove that in the case of posting certain types of news to Facebook or Google News.

I hate wikileaks, but I honestly don't see the contradiction in Twitter's behavior on this point.

Perhaps they were naive on whether RT was actually an aperture of Russian intelligence services. OK. Their KYC game could use some upping. OTOH, would anyone be surprised if the CIA were paying some little hedge fund somewhere to let them piggyback on access to Twitter's feed?

As far as Wikileaks' uninhibited operation goes, as far as I can tell, the CIA has not had its account banned from Twitter, just its firehose access. Does Wikileaks have access to that? What would they do with it if they did?

I mean it just seems like the line of questioning is, "Hey is it fair that you let them do X and won't let us do Y?" Maybe I can't see it because my silicon valley ass has no ethics.

Fortunately, my building still has the original brick cladding.

That's all well and good, but somehow every other browser manages to run on Windows versions before 10. It's kinda bad that Edge cannot.

The issue here is not the production of opiod drugs. The issue is bribing doctors. This guy would not be under prosecution if he had just produced opiods.

(There is only one, at least in English. The word "the".)

The thing that shocks me is how easily it all could have been prevented by laying a slightly more conservative course a few days before. Just a reminder of how an early course correction has so much more effect than heroic efforts later on. It's amazing how many places this is true: shipping, retirement plans, and orbital dynamics to pick just a few examples.