terminus

That said, Remarkable the company has been fairly shitty. They removed the links to the dev tools, and don't really respond to requests for source that they are obligated to release under the GPL in any reasonable time.

Which project did they not release GPL'd code for? They do have the kernel source available: https://github.com/reMarkable/linux/tree/zero-sugar

The top level github page also lists their trees for other projects.

You could come up with a scenario, sure. Bad in law though. [1]

Another scenario you could come up with is a future climate catastrophe, where millions die and/or are displaced because of this global boiling era. Incidentally, which is the protest thought crime that is being prosecuted.

[1] Legally there's a world of difference between proximal causes and proximate causes. (Neighborhood vs causally related.)

Are you seriously saying that there are two sides to the whether women are chattel or not?

What's funny is that your specious analogies try to equate this argument -- for more freedom for the Saudi women -- to others where people's freedoms are being restricted.

Might I suggest you have another go at remedial logic.

If we enforce some morals and not others in our app stores, who exactly do we choose as the arbiters of morality? U.S. public opinion? Chinese public opinion? Maybe the U.N?

I agree that not every situation is this easy to decide but this one -- women as chattel -- seems rather staightforward.

Corporations claim free speech rights (via corporate personhood) all the time. Not using those rights in this case seems to be quite a statement.

Has anybody done any work on mapping die shots onto the microarchitecture features?

The only thing I've found is work by this guy (about a decade old now): http://chip-architect.com/news/2003_09_21_Detailed_Architect...

Would be very interested in seeing more on these lines.

Thanks for the suggestion. You are right of course.

I'd say, speech leading to violence is like pornography; you know it when you see it. And I would refer you to the examples I have in the comment.

Given the subjective nature of the test there will be cases when it's less clear cut. But I think that's better than status quo.

Yes, and as I said above: good for Twitter.

However, I notice that you don't have much to say about my argument against speech leading to violence. What do you think about that.

I see a lot of people arguing about free speech and censorship here.

I'm not sure how anybody is being censored here -- given that we are only debating verification. People are not deprived off their speech. Second, for instance in the cases of people penalized after this new policy, some of them (Jason Kessler for instance) were responsible for real world violence.

I personally think that this was a long overdue move for twitter. We've fought long and hard to discredit neo-Nazi ideas and ideals and to welcome them back in the town square as if anything they have to say is worth listening to is just absurd.

I think Sartre said it best:

  "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of 
  the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks 
  are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing 
  themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use 
  words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-
  Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with 
  discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit 
  the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in 
  acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by 
  sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you 
  press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, 
  loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument 
  is past."

But punitive action against people you disagree with is simply unacceptable!

Where your argument falls down is in just reducing this to "people you disagree with." Nazis (even lately) have been responsible for more than just polite disagreements.

For instance Jason Kessler one of the neo-Nazis/white-supremacists was involved in the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville which devolved into violence and one death.

Free speech absolutism [1] is good, but I draw the line at speech leading to violence.

[1] Sidepoint, but framing this as a free speech question is IMO disingenuous because nobody's speech is being taken away here. Just verification from twitter.

How is it black box? The OP posted a link to an article; in the discussion, I talk about how the tone of the article sounds reasonable to me.

And, then I even give examples from the article describing how they seem reasonable.

Look you clearly disagree with my criteria -- so go ahread and back that disagreement up with an example from the article.

As an Oklahoman, I think it's a little strange when someone at a Canadian university writes an article funded by the Rockefeller Foundation about "failing" Oklahoma, and has written a book called You Dumb [Epithet that applies to me]. I don't see how the tone there is remotely reasonable.

Three points:

One, your argument seems to be with the title and the tone of the author's book. I'm looking purely at the content of the article which seems reasonable to me.

Second, the response of Oklahoma's /governor/ to falling revenues is prayer: > “Our situation is dire,” Oklahoma finance director Preston Doerflinger said. “To use a pretty harsh word, our revenues are difficult at best. Maybe they fall into the category of somewhat pathetic.”

Governor Mary Fallin had an answer: prayer. The governor issued an official proclamation making 13 October Oilfield Prayer Day.

Doesn't that seem mind boggling to you? That definitely seems /dumb/ to me.

Third, I don't think that epithet "dumb okie" necessarily applies to you. The author's argument -- without having read the book -- seems to apply to a subset of Oklahoma. For instance the author is clearly sympathetic to the victims of police brutality, the teachers of Oklahoma etc.

The author explicitly links Oklahoma to Trump by describing it as having the third-largest margin of victory in the presidential election. Hence the red state comment.

That's fair. Sidepoint: how do you feel about Pruitt at EPA?

Ignoring the gratuitous insult, here's the NCA 2014 report (the report itself is about the impact of climate change; Chapter 2 lays out the case for climate change caused by humans. Citations are at the end of the chapter.): http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impa...

There's also a web version where you can explore the highlights: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. The references are cited right there.

If you don't find this convincing, then I'd like to understand why. Also, if you don't trust this source (a US gov agency), I'd like to understand what kind of sources might you find more convincing.

I don't see anything constructive about his tone, nor do I find any new ideas in his writing.

Umm... the article is making the case for how Oklahoma is failing it's people. A case accompanied with publicly available data. The tone seems mostly reasonable.

It sounds like criticism and resentment pointed at red states.

You seem to be the one who's conflating Oklahoma with red states.

If you think there's something wrong about the article, maybe critique something in the article. Right now, all you seem to be doing is lobbing ad-hominem attacks.

The argument was right below the line you replied to. Perhaps try reading?

A google search for "case for climate change" would also give you meaningful results. But, you already knew that.

Well said. I'd add Soylent to that list -- they started with sustainable food and now they are pushing Soylent Drink which is basically a throwaway bottle for every 400 calories.

Probably this one: https://www.gwern.net/Story%20Of%20Your%20Life

How is the original sentence meaningless? "We think you will like this" (rephrasing) definitely has a meaning.

The original sentence is meaningless because it's marketing drivel. In a sales context, this is literally the only thing they can say.

Thus in an information theoretic sense the "We think you will love this" (the original phrasing) conveys exactly zero additional information besides what can be gleaned from the identity of the speaker.

Microsoft's strategies haven't changed much since (or at all) since these, circa 1999, Halloween documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

I'd posit this is: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-GB&q=Reddit+alte...

We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose.

That's very sanctimonious of the CEO of the richest corporation in the world. Speeches are great but what would be even better is for them to deign to actually sell something to the poor, the people who cannot afford to buy into Apple's privacy respecting products.

You are right about Android and Xerox's GUI. (There were others who were thinking in a similar direction (Openmoko for one), and I would argue that both of these things would have happened anyway. But Apple definitely moved the state of the world forward.)

However, my larger point is that Apple produces things of only one color -- things that you can exchange over the counter against money. Black box objects that are essentially consumer electronics -- things that die in 2, 4, 7, whatever years.

Contrast that with most other tech companies. Even if I don't care a whit about what they sell (witness IBM, Microsoft, Facebook -- I don't use any of their products directly) -- I (and the world) profit from their research and that gives them greater longevity than Apple.

So to correct what I said -- admired but not long term influential.

This is not about Android or iPhone. Or Google or whoever. I'll happily acknowledge that Apple sells well thought out products.

I stand by what I said earlier. There's too much of a cult of personality associated with Apple. Why do we shrink our worldview to gossipy discussions of a corporation. Tell me something interesting, something edifying that came up in this discussion?

Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now.

No. You are confusing admired with influential.

Ye, Gods. Yet another Apple story.

They are a for profit (and quite a lot of it) corporation that makes shiny gadgets.

Why do we keep talking about them incessantly? If we are not talking about what Apple is doing now, then we are talking about what somebody said about Apple 20 years ago.

I'm of course making the problem worse or meta-worse, if you will, by talking about talking about Apple, but I just don't understand this whole deification of a profit making entity.

Ringworld by Larry Niven to start with. Rest of the works in Known Space as follow ons.

Maybe. But the real question is: is a few percentage points in difference in aesthetics and usability worth it?

It is hardly curing cancer.

because it is MY PIE! Not always. Most "pie" bakers either inherit their "pie" directly in terms of wealth or education or healthy upbringing from parents. The ones you call incapable of baking their own, probably did not have all the advantages that you did.

There's also the aphorism about standing on the shoulder of giants (or indeed standing on tax created infrastructure.) That applies to all "pie" bakers.

Well put.

However, I'd add that what sucks even more is that this is not just a kernel issue. Every single application needs to worry about this.

In this particular instance, the vulnerability is caused by git not handling aliased names correctly.

Speaking from imperfect knowledge, I'd guess: case insensitivity implies allowing for aliasing (case aliasing for case insensitive and god-knows-what for Unicode insensitivity.)

Which means that anywhere you handles names, you explicitly handle these aliases. Miss a spot (or an alias), and you have a security bug.