brigandish

No UBI, thanks, let's just make them pay for the works they're relying on (as the rest of us would have to).

The facts are:

- people are being arrested, charged, and prosecuted, for opinions

- that number is greater than 1

- the number of people being arrested under speech laws, per year, is reportedly[0] over 12,000

- some substantial number of those are for opinions, some are not but we don't know how many either way [0] (and considering the government were attempting to delete the Courtdesk archive[1], I'd say that's by design)

- "convictions and sentencings for the relevant offences had decreased dramatically" [0]

This points to overzealous policing and vague laws.

The criticisms by Americans, who are surely aghast at this state of affairs given their founding principles, cannot be dismissed until better numbers are available, but while the number we do know is > 1, the criticisms are valid if not entirely sound (but may be entirely sound).

[0] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off...

[1] https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/02/ministry-of-justice-order...

For perspective, I was educated in my high school in England, and in my Physics class no muslim scholars name ever mentioned in my many textbooks and in classes. The same goes to my chemistry and math classes. Guess how many times Newton was mentioned in my physics classes and textbooks? To be honest I lost my count because too many times.

Physics is the study of physics, not history, no muslim scholars are relevant to modern physics, whereas Newton is relevant to modern physics. That's either because he's closer in the chain or because his work remains relevant, but either way he gets a mention for being relevant. Not every European mathematician or physicist is mentioned either, for the same reason. Descartes never came up, nor did Brahmagupta, nor did Tesla… the list of greats would be too long to mention and just wouldn't be relevant. Complaining about people nigh on 400 years ago not writing citations properly is an insubstantial complaint, to say the least.

No one else needs to care about your religion but you.

they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no.

It doesn't need to be thousands for it to be worrying.

From [1]:

The Metropolitan Police has awarded Father Ted creator and Irish comedian Graham Linehan £25,000 and an unreserved apology after they arrested him last year as his plane touched down at Heathrow airport.

Last year, Graham Linehan — who now lives in Arizona, United States of America — was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow airport in one of the most shocking incidents we have seen in years.

What was Graham's supposed crime? Three gender-critical posts on X. This is despite the fact that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and were reaffirmed by last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling, which settled that "sex" is defined by biology, not gender identity.

Armed police for 3 tweets on a political topic, seems like overkill in an unfortunately possible literal use of the word. It also seems that it is far more than one, too:

General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, said: "I'm beginning to lose count of the number of cases we've fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest.

[1] https://freespeechunion.org/news/met-police-apologises-and-p...

Again, in the link you provided, in the very first paragraph, it mentions several great names who are said to have given frequent credit to muslim scholars. Are you saying that is false? If so, you have the ability to edit that Wikipedia article, and you should.

Don't forget the legacy section, where there is a long list of people and organisations giving him enormous credit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham#Legacy

Is Signal morally bankrupt for resisting the UK government's onboard scanning for CSAM?

Firstly, there is a difference between a telescope and the prior advances that led to a telescope being invented. The telescope was not invented by a muslim scholar, hence that being why no one gives credit to one of them for that.

Secondly, to this claim:

That's why there's little to no credit given to Muslim scholars (Arabic, Persian, Moorish Spain, etc) by the western scholars, by conveniently dismissing the Muslim golden era as "Dark Ages" but at the same time stealing the knowledge (idea, equations design, tools, etc) for most of the prior inventions by the Muslim scholars, for example the telescope.

From the link you provided, in the very first paragraph:

The works of Alhazen were frequently cited during the Scientific Revolution by Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Johannes Kepler, and Christiaan Huygens.

No credit or frequent credit - which is it?

the capital was raised for AI requires that it produce as many reverse centaurs as possible, because the only way to recoup the farcical sums associated with AI production is to fire millions of workers and replace them

I'm not sure that this is the only way, just the way that selfish, sloppy, or impatient actors within business often work. If more wealth is created, more efficiencies found, more problems fixed, new jobs created, these would also bring the returns desired.

You sign to blog you know exist from elsewhere. And primary elsewhere was google search.

I'm going to guess that means "the blogs you know, you primarily found from Google searches"?

Most of the substacks I follow are because I encountered the author's thoughts on X or forums like this one. I don't know if anyone else is like that but I'm also not sure why you're generalising, seemingly quite hastily.

Your assumptions are the opposite of those for an English common law country, which is why those with that background are particularly aghast.

Operating a motor vehicle requires a license, and you have to present it.

You do not have to present it in all cases, and not to actually use the vehicle.

Drinking and other activities and purchases require showing ID to prove your age.

Not in all cases. Purchasing alcohol in the UK may require ID (but again, not in all cases) but drinking is legal above 5 years old in areas that are not solely for the purpose of selling alcohol (crazy, but true).

That list will go on.

Since the government currently has all of our ID data

No, it does not - for example, a passport is different to a birth certificate and they contain different amounts of identity information, and my government does not need to know other identity info regarding my work.

mathematically secure algorithms have been invented to prove personal information without revealing it, I'd say we have reached the point where digital identification can be implemented without infringing on people's privacy any more than a clerk checking your ID.

This is too strong a statement. Having strong algorithms does not equate with the level of security you claim to exist. Implementation of the whole process is just as important.

Regardless, we have plenty of good reasons to fear any government having this information. The Japanese government, for example, has its civil service set up in a way to prevent the kind of abuses we saw in WW2. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dutch have done the same, for what should be obvious reasons.

I am not making an argument based on tradition.

I know, and neither am I. Perhaps you misread my comment.

I couldn't care less that the web has not been government-gated for the past X years

That is clear.

because through this logic you should adhere to any dumb tradition or custom humans have ever had

Not only is that statement a non-sequitur, since neither of us is making an argument based on tradition, it's also entirely irrelevant.

I am concerned with the present and the future of the web's impact on the world, which of course requires government intervention like any other big phenomenon or technology in the history of humanity.

An assertion that is a) going beyond the subject, thus creating a straw man, and b) when applied to that actual subject, completely undermined by my comment.

My actual comment, not the one you appear to have decided to respond to that I haven't written, wouldn't write, and thus doesn't exist.

Not only is your assumption false, since in its first years the web was only accessible to academics so the gating was implicit

The subject is *explicit* age gating. Nothing implicit, and nothing that isn't age gating is relevant.

Do you know what's behind the cables that carry your bytes? The ICANN? The IANA? I hope you never do, if you dislike government involvement this much

Firstly, that is snark, but fair's fair I suppose. The irony.

Secondly and much more importantly, I dislike age gating via large-scale government coercion, the subject of this discussion.

Could you respond to that? Specifically, age gating via large-scale government coercion.

Someone else in the thread asked, as others have, but most pithily

How about not needing to do age verification?

Which I agree with. However, I think that ship is sailing. Those who care about this had better find a provider that they trust and support providers they trust, because the perfect is the enemy of the good, and without the good there'll be no way to rollback to the perfect at all.

The web has not had age gating via large-scale government coercion since its inception. To claim that it's absurd to think we can do without it is to detach from that reality, and is itself absurd.

The irony.

A dystopian state?

It does on my balcony where the fan pumps to, which has made doing any gardening difficult, but to the overall outside temperature it's just a drop in the ocean.

Yes, by giving hints it verifies the test because if it can't find it with hints then it shouldn't find it without hints, else there is some other mechanism at work (which would also be useful to know, like access to other tools).

They are told outside the test because if they can't find it when given hints then it's safe to assume it won't find it given no hints. It verifies to test, to an extent, much like running tests that should fail when given a set of inputs that should make it fail (you write an always failing test alongside your other tests, right?;)

Pedantic bootlicker

Please, try harder to raise the level of debate.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

I'm not sure HN is for you.

That's not being a "free speech" absolutist.

One doesn't need to be a free speech absolutist to not be a fascist, far from it; and the exceptions prove the rule - those examples are the definition of exceptional. "10 times…" I can remember people getting banned en masse for changing their profile pic to an NPC character. The difference is night and day.

i'm sure your reply will be pedantic

Have you heard of the term "bad faith argument"? That's a good example.

- Opposition to political and cultural liberalism

Yes, banned speech on twitter that trans people use.

I had to check this one. I found two stories. [1] shows that people were warned about speech (e.g. using the term cisgender) but were still able to post without problems. [2] showed that X's rules were updated to prevent harassment in the form of deadnaming or misgendering. I doubt that either supports your assertion to be true.

As to the rest of your answers, you seem to have given away that you didn't read the Britannica article at all:

- Education as character building

what

You should know, right? You read the article and made the accusation. You've done this several times:

- The leadership principle

idk what this is

- The “new man”

or this

There's not really a need for me to be pedantic in the face of such slipshod work, but then again, perhaps you think that not being slipshod is being pedantic. Which would also be wrong, but telling.

Try learning about what fascism is, that would be my suggestion. With a book, while putting your phone away.

[1] https://www.them.us/story/elon-musk-x-ban-users-cisgender-sl...

[2] https://www.advocate.com/news/x-bans-deadnaming-misgendering

That's not a rebuttal. Claiming to support is not support.

Is Musk wielding the apparatus of state to ensure that any speech that he disagrees with is suppressed, e.g. on college campuses?

Fascists don't support free speech. Please, learn what that word means[0] and then use it responsibly. We're already seeing the effects of misusing and overusing several other important words for political/societal discourse, and this is one of them. It's entirely unhelpful and lowers the quality of conversation here.

[0] The Doctrine of Fascism is available, for free, in several places. Start there.

That's the whole point of the conversation lol

It's like you're side stepping the entire discourse.

No, they addressed that with:

The only thing that would be non-consensual would be obligating the employer to redistribute her profit over and above what had already been negotiated.

Which would be truly immoral.

"lol"

AOC also doesn't say anything about "moral", etc.

She says you can't earn it and then gives several examples in a row of immoral and/or rentier economic practices. At no point does she give any example that is what most people would call moral behaviour. She does not give the example pg gives, of simply working hard for it. The implication is that it is impossible to earn that level of wealth morally.

Earn is already defined in the dictionary in both ways perfectly well, and she is using the sense of deserved. pg clearly knows she's using it that way, and his argument is:

1. You can make a billion dollars

2. You can do it by making something people want

That deals with both senses of earn because none of AOC's examples apply and he adds that:

The reason her startup was growing so fast was that she and her cofounder had been working their asses off to make their users happy

How is that immoral? How is that unearned? If you think it's unearned then you've failed to understand the maths he elucidates in the article, or you've taken a position that earning large amounts of money by any means is immoral (or, like AOC, wish to present the straw man that it's only possible through immoral means).

Which Linux are you using for that?

Why is social media so different?

Because of what that ban entails that the others don't.

Baseball was invented in Britain.

Isn't the contention that, because football is pay to play in the US, the US isn't that good compared to places that it isn't pay to play?

Baseball, basketball, American football are all sports with much less international participation, and generally require pay to play elsewhere at around the same level as in the US, because of the way the sports are. There's no refutation possible from that.

My mate broke someone's arm bowling at him. Cricket always has an element of danger, for both the fielders and the batters.