HN user
Holocaust victims can't feel insulted because they're dead. Survivors can but they're few in number and will soon be extinct. Are you sure these are the main groups of people who would be hurt by legalized holocaust denial? I find that hard to believe, especially since we allow denial of most other large scale killings - even those bigger than the holocaust.
Perhaps the New Zealander reviewer wouldn't have invested so much time and preparation into one meal if he didn't have high expectations? Sure it's bad if they didn't respect his reservation, but you don't reserve a seat at McDonalds that far in advance so you don't have the opportunity to suffer that problem.
You can calculate the GDP per man-hour to compare "smartness". Of course that doesn't mean individual workers are doing something smarter, but that together they've built a system which operates more efficiently. Maybe past generations of Germans spent their work doing something that benefits current generations (figuring out how to make reliable car parts?), while past generations of Greeks worked on less helpful things (tourism?).
How is it hate speech? Are there people who would start killing Jews if they discovered it didn't really happen? Serious question, maybe Germany has people who are ready to commit violence but are held back by the thought that the holocaust probably happened? I can't think of the chain of causation from saying "It didn't happen" to someone killing someone else.
The closest I can find on Wikipedia's definition of hate speech is "...disparages ... a protected individual or group." Who is that group? Is it "people who believe the holocaust happened"? Surely belief in an arbitrary claim doesn't count for defining a "protected individual or group". Is the group Jews? How does it harm Jews?
I think it's worse than that - it distorts our record of history. In another couple of hundred years, if people want to find out what happened, they'll see how it was banned and realize that most information that we did publish must have been biased. They could reasonably assume that it's largely false since no serious well funded attempts to refute it were allowed. So they could conclude that they have no idea what really happened. They might conclude as you did, that it might not have happened, otherwise information about it wouldn't have been subject to so much suppression.
We should probably make the same conclusion today. Since when have legally enforced official versions of history been trusted over free and open research?
In real life, Tan Bao wouldn't have been evicted, he would have preferred the opportunity to accumulate money instead of not accumulating money, despite the temporary lower quality of life working in the factory. I'd say he has less poverty now. He can still survive but can also save.
I think depends on the medicine. Like fixing a bullet wound, some medicines obviously work and you don't need a study to know that (for blood pressure, insulin, severe pain, etc). But those are perhaps the ones we take for granted and don't really include when we think about the idea of medicine being bunk.
What's more suspicious is medicine that people use just because they're in a culture of taking medicine for everything. Reliefs for colds, coughs, mild pain, sore throat, psychological problems, etc. These illnesses have a strong get-better-anyway effect so it's very easy for people to believe that whatever they took cured them. Don't believe me? Go to China and you'll see people taking herb drinks for the same illnesses and having just as much faith in their effectiveness. Other popular cures include drinking warm water and "growing a pair".
They say it's still cheaper and less energy intensive than credit card processing. So it's a step in a greener direction. We don't have to get to the final solution in the first try. Dogecoin, etc have their own shortcomings that make them far worse than bitcoin for exchange and storing value.
Pet peeve as a viewer - avoid disguisting body nioses - lip smacking and sighing between sentences, sniffing and saliva sliding around the mouth. I guess that last one is a microphone thing.
Sure, but who will pay for that time and energy? I guess no-one, which means not producing the product in the first place.
in a millennia copyright is looked back upon with the same disgust and insanity that human sacrifice, child wives, and genital mutilation are
1000 years is enough time for our contemporary culture to change. Those things you listed may even become acceptable by then. Just to compare with what we already accept - capital punishment, abortion, children being controlled by their parents, and even forced to eat food, circumcision.
I personally make money selling software that I wrote expecting to be able to sell it in the future. Without copyright, I wouldn't have done it in the first place. How do you see this sort of activity in a world without copyright?
True, but since 2008 at least, I think any level headed rich person would have to take any promises made by JP Morgan with a grain of salt. They might get screwed but they might still get the best return on their investment compared to more honest alternatives. It's still a choice to make in where you put your money.
Everything I hear about investment banks is that their job is to rip off rich people. If you don't like that, then use a regular bank and get a regular couple of percent interest.
Optimizations, GPUs and even parallelization are not always much use in simulations because the computational complexity is usually very high - like O(n^3) or so. That's not even counting the cubing of the problem size in going from 1D to 3D. If you can get 10x the performance out of some optimization, that can allow you to solve a slightly bigger problem - but isn't likely to be dramatic enough to go from 2D to 3D.
You can also do that with SolidWorks. Sadly this kind of kinematics/CAD software is hugely expensive and still too complex and narrow-market for open source to offer any good alternatives to :(
Most victims of guns aren't attackers that were shot in self defense. Are you saying it's better that large number of innocent people get killed than a minority of self-defending people? That doesn't sound like a safe solution overall - it only benefits the people who take more action to defend themselves and hurts everyone else.
Question too - how do you use a gun to defend yourself against somebody else with a gun? Doesn't it come down to who can "draw" quicker - which will surely always be the attacker because he's the only one who knows what's about to happen?
Or are you only talking about defending yourself against people without guns who who might use them impulsively so they don't have the advantage of surprise?
Yes. It's still sad that we have to have several people getting killed by the same person in the same day for it to become a public discussion. People get shot to death every day, but we don't care because they're all separate incidents (boiling a frog). Also they're mostly black but that doesn't make race the reason.
It's OK to argue. That's how we learn to see different viewpoints, rather than pretending to agree for sake of making everyone happy.
I see you're talking about what I would call culture or customs, rather than the broader range of qualities that stereotypes can include - things that might (if they were true) apply to those same groups across different cultures.
There's a kind of moral leap people are making if they say "Men have a harder time controlling their sexual urges, therefore it's OK for men to objectify women." You could still have the same stereotype with a different conclusion by saying "Men have a harder time controlling their sexual urges, so we should be more vigilant about men when we're trying to catch somebody objectifying women." This seems to be how it ended up with blacks and crime. I'd say the outcomes that we don't like don't require the stereotypes, so the stereotypes themselves aren't harmful and it's OK if they turn out to be fundamentally true.
Surely it's OK for a backup drive to fail occasionally. Your working drive might fail occasionally too but it's extremely unlikely that both of them fail within a day or so of each other. That's the situation that would lead to loss of data.
That's for a pure backup. For a history of previous versions, of course you'd want more reliability if you only have one copy of that history.
I agree that whole argument seemed quite artificial. I took it as a way to complain about other researchers who apparently had assumed that all stereotypes are somehow false, whatever false means. I'm sure they didn't mean it must hold for each individual in the group to be accurate.
They said that in the first couple of pages. I know it's long and wordy, but it gets more practical and down to earth the further into it you go. They have addressed your concern in quite a lot of detail.
Not trying to be offensive, but did you feel the need to add the statement abut self-fulfilling prophecies because making a bare claim like "I believe in some stereotypes" is so politically sensitive that you're afraid of being judged as a racist or sexist? This is similar to the sort of complains the author has about older research into stereotypes assuming they were inaccurate without testing them - no doubt they made that assumption to protect themselves from allegations of racism/sexism/etc.
The self-fulfilling prophecy argument is a way to say "OK, they might be true, but the blame lies with some other group of oppressors and it's still not an innate quality of the subjects themselves, so it's still not really fundamentally true.". Why shouldn't it be an innate quality? Maybe women really do earn less than men because of something different in how men and women earn money, not because men oppress women with their stereotypes.
Without research, I don't think it's any more reasonable to say "stereotypes are mainly accurate because they're self-fulfilling prophecies" than to say "stereotypes are mainly accurate because groups of people are naturally different.".
It's hard to imagine that this machine could be cheaper to own and operate than just buying new paper. If it's not then it's just a show-off item for Epson that nobody will actually use.
However, if it is cheaper, that might be a game changer! Maybe it does it by eliminating the collection and sorting costs from traditional recycling.
It's great they're going so far with it. Requiring harvesting to be allowed prevents scammy half-measures like Elsevier(?)'s scheme of letting their subscribers publish link to individual articles that might satisfy a few use cases but still allows them to shut down access whenever they like.
Curious. It looks like academia.edu is mangling the pdf and presenting it as an image to fool OCR, and they succeeded in fooling Google's OCR, hence the weird letter substitutions.
There's the argument that if someone has access to the passwords then they've already got enough control over the computer to do whatever other damage they like - like reading them out of memory after they're decrypted.
Base64 at least provides some protection against somebody looking at it with their eyes and memorizing them, which is perhaps a more likely scenario - family members, kids, etc.
On Windows, you don't always need a 3rd party FTP program. Windows Explorer (not IE) already does FTP. Just open any folder and type ftp://example.com into the path bar.
You're saying it's not true? That policemen don't assume all blacks must be guilty of something? I'm sure a lot of them really do. That's just how human nature works. We all judge people on flimsy evidence and form prejudices. Police are humans like the rest of us and are bound to have those same kinds of prejudice.
For 1), even modern liberal people still have racist-like prejudices which are not intrinsically different. We're led to believe it's wrong to discriminate based on race so we just transfer our discrimination to some other classification. Blacks are OK, but not if they're from Africa. Indians are OK but not if they're from India. Whites are OK but not if they're from Syria, Irish are OK but not if they're from Ireland. That is, racism has morphed into nationalism, which is widely acceptable so we feel it's OK.
Similarly, homophobia has morphed into "pedophobia". We can't hate gays anymore but we're plenty virulent at hating pedophiles. Just the same emotions transferred to another group.
Inside, most of us are still basically the same bigoted people, but we've restructured our bigotry to fit the popular modern values.
These guys are buying to move in and settle down. That's exactly what's good for community and society. You're talking about foreign landlords who rent to local people, which is different. Just because they're Chinese, doesn't mean they're the same Chinese people you're afraid of. They're still human beings with families and kids, as you saw in the video. People all over the world need to get over their tribal "yellow peril" and "Asian invasion" mindsets. Historically Chinese immigrants were disliked because they worked too hard for the locals to compete with, now they're too rich for the locals to compete with. What next, their kids will do too well at school for the local kids to compete with?