rosser

We get DMCA claims all the time — most often from our customers' own counsel. Even so, the explicit, as automated as can be policy is to pull the content, and let the lawyers sort it out amongst themselves.

It is very much a joke, and not a joke.

Submitter, or a moderator, please edit the title to re-add the word "How". That's done automatically, but sometimes it's wrong. It's especially so here.

Also, this remains as fantastic an article on PostgreSQL's MVCC nature as it was previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15027870

So do I. I learned a long damned time ago how counterproductive it usually was to butt into conversations to, "Well, actually..." at people.

Oh, the jumping jacks thing was supposed to have been taken as an actual argument? Because my response to that was, "I wouldn't go there."

You know what, dude? I really, really hope it is just an allegation. I want desperately for it not to be the case that Minsky got sucked into Epstein's shitty web. But the deposition we've seen so far is just that: the only one we've seen so far.

That said, and this is key, none of this is about whether or not Minsky did anything. Assuming he did, it isn't even about whether it was with a minor, or a woman of legal age. It's about Stallman having decided that was a prudent moment and subject about which to "Well actually..." at the world. The whole point is Stallman's behavior, not Minsky's.

In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.

It's not that simple. There are plenty of places where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect. Those are some of the most interesting, challenging questions we will face.

EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?

Don't be so reductive.

Really?

You're going to make a moral comparison between a minor traffic violation (not even a primary offense!) and having sex with a coerced child?

I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.

Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:

Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.

This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.

EDIT: Phrasing

Please remember that Purdue were the ones who marketed Oxycontin on the premise of one dose for 12-hour pain relief.

When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses.

Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestly about it for two and a half seconds realizes that no matter what the recommendation is, enough people who are in bad enough pain to be prescribed oxy will take it when they need it, recommendation be damned, that to have issued that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith.

They marketed the drug on a lie in order to get doctors to prescribe it, which fueled — if not created — an epidemic, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Their hands are not clean, here.

Fine, since people seem to feel the need to read whatever shallow interpretation of my point they want, let me be "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." clear:

I'm talking about not going all aspy-monologue, "well, actually..." at people about ultimately inconsequential things like using their turn signals or not, or misusing a word, or whatever — precisely so they aren't pre-disposed to eye-roll at me, and then tune me out, when I do take the time, because this time it's a subject that matters.

For a recent example, let's suppose I might have taken the effort to expound upon what "words actually mean" in a discussion of the definitions, laws, and treaties relevant to the notion of "asylum", who is or isn't eligible, whether or not criminal liability might attach for illegally crossing a border, and so on, because that is a place where the fight is more likely to be worth it.

Simply: pick your battles. More often than you think, they probably aren't worth the cost. If you save your "well actually" points for the places where they are, you'll get significantly better return on spending them.

I am just gobsmacked that I'm arguing in favor of doing something judiciously, so that when you do it, it matters, and I'm being told I'm somehow excusing the very kinds of shit I'm talking about saving your energy for fighting...

I have personally spoken with three women who have stated that they will not attend conferences where rms is also attending, or speaking, specifically because he won't leave them alone (by which I mean "keeps coming onto them"), and won't listen to them when they ask him to leave them alone, which they have done repeatedly, and unambiguously.

Is that a direct enough statement of facts for you, or would you like their phone numbers or emails or whatever, so you can fact-check for yourself?

Did I really need to explicitly, preemptively disclaim that the approach I was describing is more appropriate to daily life type interpersonal stuff, than it is to fucking Nazis?

I think the very fact that so many of us look at talking with people as something that can be "won" is the preponderance of the problem. It doesn't have to be a competition.

Speaking as someone who has learned this the hard way, over and over and over again, please hear me when I say: "Correct" does not always entail "right", even leaving aside whether being right is even necessarily laudable. Getting all, "Well technically..." in the places where those things disagree is a battle — since it's something to be "won", remember — you'll want to consider carefully whether it's worth fighting, every time.

At some point, I decided that it might be better for all of our well-being, not to have all the "incorrect" people in my life always annoyed with me. Based on the quality of the relationships I now have with them, I think it was worth it. Even better: now, when I do actually make the effort to make these kinds of distinctions, I tend significantly more often to be listened to.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

EDIT: Phrasing

I'm very glad to see Stallman can learn to appreciate the nuance of these questions and acknowledge that he had previously thought incorrectly, but the subject of this thread, and the subject of The Fine Article remain cases where he just shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place.

I am eternally grateful to rms for the contributions he's made, and many of the often unpopular, but amazingly principled stances he holds. For some of the things I think he's right about, I think he's one of the only voices out there saying that thing.

But for fuck's sake, Richard, the notion of staying in your lane sometimes has merit. Like with your awful jab about Jobs' death, keep that shit to yourself. Sometimes, remaining silent is the right move. Sometimes, attempting to defend your position just weakens it further. Sometimes, it turns out, "technically correct" is actually the worst kind of correct.

O...kay?

So, how about all of the not-California parts of the US that have the same kinds of problems (which is, last I checked, more or less "all of them")?

Because, the thing is, only one of my examples was, you know, from California.

The trope that wait times are materially worse in single-payer systems is precisely that: a trope. You do not have to dig hard to find examples of wait-times measured in months to get diagnostic procedures scheduled, and where I live — the San Francisco Bay Area — the wait time for an initial consultation with, e.g., a dermatologist has been about the same, for as long as I've lived here. I know doctors who work in hospitals who've had to wait months for a breast cancer scan.

A thing that sucks in both systems can not legitimately be used to argue against only one of them.

You might be having trouble wrapping your head around the thing, because the thing you're trying to wrap your head around is completely different from what I said.

To be clear, then: I did not downvote your experience. (I'm not even sure what that means. Can you explain?) I downvoted the counterfactual conclusion that you've drawn from your experience, and then crowed condemningly at the community.

Okay, then. Why is "disparaging" such a terrible word to have picked?

Let's start there, and we'll our way 'round to logical "downward spirals"...

So the part where I actually agree with many of the concerns about the man and his administration is ... what? Noise? Doesn't matter, because I didn't use the "right" word?

Real talk: we haven't even begun unpacking the ironies here, dude.

EDIT: No, that's not an invitation. This conversation isn't going anywhere useful to anyone, and I have both a meeting, and deadlines. Have a good day.

To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink.

Disagreement isn't persecution.

If you're referring to Brexit, I don't think it's meaningfully comparable. A significant enough fraction of people were deluded into voting for it or did so on a lark, legitimately believing it was never going to pass, that it just can't be taken as credible.

A vote that is substantially cast on the basis of disinformation or lulz is not a legitimate vote, and despite occasionally overwhelming public outcry to the effect that they want one, the people haven't been given the chance to recast it.

A clown, indicating every intent of not following the vote of the Parliament he leads, into an action which the polity he and that Parliament represent seem, largely enough, not to want that a new referendum is the only not-insane choice, is an existential danger to democracy. There is nothing to reconcile between these not-exemplary-of-anything-but-themselves cases.

So only those oppressed by brutal dictatorships deserve self determination?

No, everyone deserves it. It's just that people not under brutal dictatorships observably more often already have it.

Per another comment in another thread [0] it's not only not a ridiculous statement, but a little bit how things actually work, at least in the US.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20915781

I'm well aware of which questions I should be asking about this situation. They aren't those.

Thanks for your time. I don't see further discussion going anywhere new.

How about:

3. Normalization of people who commit transgressive acts.

Once again, for the nosebleed seats: this whole argument is about how the Media Lab's taking Epstein's money, and welcoming him on the premises, conveys the message, "Well, he can't be that bad."

Remember how we follow the behavior of people more than their words, in determining what is and isn't acceptable? When people tell us one thing, and behave differently, we pretty reliably follow one of those over the other.

So it does not matter how many times anyone says Epstein was a shitty guy who behaved shittily. Every single word is utterly undermined by the press release photo of him and Joichi-san smiling and shaking hands, or whatever.

EDIT: So, while normalizing the person isn't directly normalizing the behavior, it's also kinda a distinction without a difference. A person who wants to behave like Epstein has been shown that he's still able to be socially accepted, even at the very highest levels of society, even if he does the thing that brazenly.

How, exactly, is that not normalizing the behavior? In what possible way is that not all kinds of "Eh, whatever..." over something so egregious?

Please take some effort to improve your understanding of the notion of "social norms", how they're enforced, and how they evolve.

I promise you, a person in a position of prestige or power openly, willingly associating with — even benefiting from — someone who is known to have committed a transgressive act is definitional of normalization.

...doesn't mean one condone the practice...

Ohai, goalpost.

I thought we were talking about normalizing things, not condoning them.

There is precisely zero need for assumption here. The only way Epstein's behavior could have been more in the open is if he were advertising screenings of the "home movies" he made with these girls.

When you continue to associate with that guy, you're saying, "People who do that are okay with us." That's normalization. Especially when, say, your day job is as the head of a pretty damned prestigious institution like Joichi-san.

There is, in principle, no difference between this situation and all of the museums and whatever distancing themselves from the Sackler family and their opioid money. You don't get to white-wash killing tens of thousands of people for profit by having a new museum wing bear your name, just like you don't get to wash your hands of trafficking children for sex, just because you funded some AI research.

Disk IO is far from the only bottleneck, or necessarily even the most common one.

Source: My day job has been as a DBA for ~15 years.

(Aside: your comment was dead, probably because it spent a while just saying "Test post". I've vouched for it, but I have plans for the evening and will be stepping away, not having read your revision.)