HN user
Yes, of course, we (particularly the EFF) must take Selam G.'s claims seriously, even when there isn't an ounce of evidence to back them up.
See, it's fine to dislike RMS (for whatever reason). But the question was whether the EFF -- an organization that claims to support free speech on the Internet -- should've joined the dogpile on RMS based on ludicrous claims written by an outrage addict.
.
.
Selam G. was paraphrasing an anecdotal #metoo comment by an anonymous source that was backed up by zero evidence. If that's good enough evidence for EFF to call for someone's head, then they're worse than hypocrites. And the law schools that gave degrees to their lawyers should consider rescinding them, since they clearly don't seem to know a thing about law.
.
.
.
No, the EFF is allowed to criticize RMS as much as they want. Criticizing RMS doesn't make them hypocritical. However, linking [1] and spreading slanderous lies (I'm talking about Selam G.'s hitpieces [2] from 2019) isn't very fitting for an organization that claims to defend Internet free speech.
RMS never defended Epstein -- not even once. His only crime was being a pedantic aspie. If the EFF considers that to be good enough reason to cancel him, then yes, I think that EFF are total hypocrites. FWIW, EFF's official blog post only linked Selam G.'s hitpiece that has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere [3].
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...
[2] https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
Lol. EFF are now a bunch of virtue signalling hacks pretending to care about Internet free speech. They outed themselves as total hypocrites when they joined the "RMS is an <X>ist" bandwagon and removed Gilmore from their board.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-...
http://techrights.org/2021/11/05/not-the-frontier-anymore/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/25/john_gilmore_removed_...
Yes, and Voevodsky is no longer alive.
You actually want to drop ballast as you descend, to make up for the added seawater.
The ballast is dropped during the ascension, not the descent. This makes the ascension-step impossible to fail and requires no electricity [1]. Incidentally, I first came to know about the bathyscaphe while reading Peter Watts's Rifters trilogy (which is an amazing hard SF series set in the deep sea).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe#Mode_of_operation
The first video lecture [1] is titled "Introduction to Linux", yet, ironically, the instructor conducts the entire lecture using macOS. I guess the main purpose of this course is to teach uninitiated kids a thing or two about the *nix CLI, but for some reason the instructor has decided to call it the "Linux CLI". He also teaches some terrible shell scripting practices [2] such as parsing the output of ls [3] and not quoting variables.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTHAe-m56Vw
And that somehow makes Israel exempt here, or something
It doesn't. But it's irresponsible journalism to write an article of this sort without admitting that every single arms exporter sells to autocracies.
I'm not questioning the validity of the article and I'm not defending Israel. But it's basic knowledge that (i) several first-world countries make a nice profit off of wars in the third world and (ii) almost all of these countries are liberal Western (or West-aligned) democracies. This is the reason why I don't understand why the author has singled out Israel here. Put it another way, could you name an arms exporter, which could be a company, country, etc., that doesn't sell to despotic regimes?
Maybe there are actual examples
I'm not sure I understand the point of this article as Israel isn't even a major arms exporter [1]. There are several major countries that profit off of wars -- America, France, the UK, etc., all are prominent weapons exporters. And all these countries export to "problematic" buyers.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/18417/global-weapons-exports/
Notebooks are just glorified REPLs, and they've been around since the early days of Lisp.
Norton and McAfee were the bogeymen those days.
<edit name="autohint" mode="assign">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
<edit name="hinting" mode="assign">
<bool>true</bool>
</edit>
<edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle">
<const>hintslight</const>
</edit>
Usenet is good for mainstream/relatively new content, but it's not easy to find less popular/old stuff there.
support of the current war in Ukraine
The Intercept has mostly echoed current left-liberal talking points ever since Greenwald left, so you won't find many articles critical of the current war there. Anyway, since the OP is about Kissinger, it's interesting to note what he had to say about the current war [1]
"After saying that Western countries should remember Russia’s importance to Europe and not get swept up “in the mood of the moment,” Kissinger also pushed for the West to force Ukraine into accepting negotiations with a “status quo ante,” which means the previous state of affairs.
“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante,” said Kissinger, 98, according to the Daily Telegraph. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.”
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/24/henry-kissin...
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- H. Kissinger.
It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you use uBlock, add the following to the filters:
youtube.com###cinematics.ytd-watch-flexyOntology was central to past physical theories like of Newton or Aristotle though
Yes, physics has origins in philosophy. Philosophical notions that could be formulated mathematically and tested experimentally became physics, and the rest became metaphysics. And, in the 21st century, metaphysics is of zero importance to working physicists. Only a few physicists would even be able to accurately describe what "ontology" is.
Even GR has light cones and events as real physical objects of the theory.
Events and light cones are just convenient words/phrases for mathematical definitions, e.g., an event being the 4-vector (t, x, y, z). They don't have any further philosophical significance.
no clear ontology of QM
Isn't that by "design"? Ontology of QM is an inherently philosophical topic, and is of little interest to working physicists.
If you have any interest, here is the ass-curing software: Focolizzare.
How does this compare to other "take a break" programs like xwrits and Workrave?
This list doesn't make any sense. At #6 is a Danish split pea soup, which looks similar to a lentil soup. And at #4 we have fried spiders.
SnagIt [1]
$62.99 for something that you could hack together in a few lines of (power)shell script?