The difference is contextual, as with anything. The parent obviously disagrees that the data provided rebuts the article's content (I too disagree, and think it mostly only serves to spur hatred in this particular context, the same way the title of the article does).
This is weak. Yes, these numbers can be (and usually are) used as emotion-targeting propaganda. However, assuming they are true in a reasonably non-cherry-picked context, the prevalence of dishonest usage then does not disqualify them from being used in a useful context, free from hatred. Your post implies otherwise, though (regardless of whether they are or are not being used that way in the particular case of the OP).
Lots of propaganda and hate-bait is true. Context is what matters in those cases. I agree that the parent is making an incorrect implication though, but not for the reason you give.
While that is a common response, it doesn't address the problem or make any specfic claim. Are you saying there is no hate speech? We shouldn't do anything about hate speech? Make a claim here.
The "real" Anonymous was. Now some other hacktivist group uses the name to cash in on the clout. People get really excited when they hear Anonymous is back at work.
There's a libertarian-socialist horseshoe on age of consent laws. The more ideological one becomes, the more passionate they are about lowering the age and distinguishing between the different paraphilias relating to sex with minors. At this point I assume that all political theories are invented to justify their proponents' sexual desires.
> There's a libertarian-socialist horseshoe on age of consent laws.
Not really.
First, because “libertarian” and “socialist” aren't opposing poles (libertarian socialism is a thing), and, second, because non-libertarian socialists aren't particularly against (or for reducing the age set in) age of consent laws. And, third, even anarchists, who are the polar extreme of libertarian socialist tend to support age of consent laws, there only consistent opposition to current ones is, as with other laws of current societies, objection to the structural basis on which they are made and enforced, content of the laws aside.
EDIT: Similar things may also be true of libertarians not being as anti-age-of-consent as portrayed as I have noted about socialists; I have had somewhat more contact with broad leftist communities than broad libertarian ones outside of their overlap, so I may be more susceptible to misestimating the prevalence of certain views in the libertarian community because they are highly visible when espoused because of how transgressive they are.
My comment was tongue in cheek, but is based on my experience with both groups, especially as they exist online.
Part of what's strange is how often age of consent comes up in these circles. It's not something most people think too much about. Last time I was worried about age of consent laws was when I turned 18 a few months before my girlfriend.
> tend to support age of consent laws
> objection to the structural basis on which they are made and enforced
You'll get a laundry list of reasons why our existing laws are oppressive, passionate assertions that adults and minors can have positive sexual relationships with each other, delineations of pedophilia, ephebophilia, etc. All followed up with a vague caveat that age of consent laws might not be inherently bad, but usually with no attempt whatsoever at suggesting what they should be. Seems a strange place to just stop your little thought experiment.
> Part of what's strange is how often age of consent comes up in these circles.
Age of consent comes up a lot in libertarian (including both right-libertarian and anarchist/libert5-socialist) circles because it's an easy emotional “think of the children” gotcha that the groups are, because of their opposition to status quo government authority subjected to continuously.
It also comes up a lot because libertarian groups (on both left and right) are about fundamentally reorganizing the structure of authority in society, and it's an obvious and (for most) important
issue addressed by the status quo system.
People reimplementing (or designing a reimplementation of) a system should spend a lot more time thinking about things the current system treats as a solved problem than end users of the existing system do.
> All followed up with a vague caveat that age of consent laws might not be inherently bad, but usually with no attempt whatsoever at suggesting what they should be.
I've rarely found anyone in either community that wouldn't state their preference on age of consent laws when asked, what they tend not to do is express what they should be for all communities, because they tend to oppose the idea of centralized legal standards for all communities (both left and right libertarians have frequently spoken up to support intervention if the practice in another community is seen as widespread violation of moral consent, but not reducing that to some legalism. I think people have trouble understanding that libertarians have a different view on the relation between morality and law than people who are less libertarian, and therefore mistake libertarian reluctance to demand universal legislation on certain issues with libertine moral neutrality on them.
> Then you have people like Vaush
Vaush is a rather controversial figure among anarchists.
You seem to be implying that this is secondary effect of being "more ideological," and not following from the ideology itself. The point is rather that libertarians say that the state should not have a right to define such limits at all on people. Not sure where the parallel would be for leftists/socialists?
Also small nitpick but one cannot be "more" or "less" ideological, we all are whether we like it or not, it's just the question of which ideology you are. You might say, "well I am not one of those fanatics on either side of the horseshoe," but that doesn't make you "less" ideological, it just defines your ideology.
Ideology =/= belief system. It is rather the implicit, subconscious framing you have to the world that informs the belief system you arrive at ("rationally" or otherwise). So, in fact, denying you have ideology, or having "less" ideology than the radicals, shows that the influence of ideology on you is stronger than otherwise :).
I don't use Sublime often anymore, but it's the only graphical editor I can work with. I can't help but get exasperated at the constant, admittedly small, delays with VS Code. I'm talking about small things like the delays when popping open and using the fuzzy finder, the time it takes for a project-wide file search to complete, typed characters showing up just a tiny bit later. Whereas Sublime, for its faults, feels well-oiled, VS Code feels gummy and unable to keep up with me. I know I'm being picky, but it's hard to turn off once you're aware of it, like recognizing bad kerning.
>Maybe it's changed since the sublime 2/3 days, but the packages ecosystem always felt a bit unpolished and anemic.
As far as I can tell it's only gotten worse. The rise of Atom and then VS Code sapped a lot of the energy that went into creating plugins.
Three more anecdotes here: my mother, uncle, and wife chopped off the tips of their fingers (him doing farm work, them chopping food) and had them grow back. The article talks about kids, but the former two were in their 40s and the latter in her 20s at the time.
2̶7̶ 2 dependencies, travis ci configured, fully tested and documented, even the readme depends on some external tool. github username is i-voted-for-trump. Looks like a joke that people actually started using.
27 dependents, i.e. things depending on it. Only one dependency: is-odd, hilariously.
I'd like to think it's a joke, but maybe not. Anyway, what's with the massive download spike, 20 million downloads between 22nd and 28th December 2020.
It would be one thing if it was _just_ a little demo utility used to showcase packaging and distribution of a trivial use case, however the creator of this has also created a number of packages which pull in these "demo" packages, like `handlebar-helpers`, which is again just these trivial function packages wrapped in handlebar decorators.
Several of these utility and helper packages are then pulled into other packages and build tools and marketed as legitimate packages, effectively hiding and masking the "just a demo" labels of the root is-even, is-odd, is-number packages. When people like myself complain about the absurdity of NPM supply chain verification, this is what we're arguing against.
This was one of the more entertaining parts of the trial. The defense stated that "AI and logarithms" (algorithms) were used to enhance the image when zoomed in, and the prosecution claimed that it was no different from a magnifying glass.
Both are right in some way. I think the defense raised a good point that while interpolation algorithms are everywhere, people don't generally understand that by definition these introduce new information not present in the original. It's a general problem with technology, but isn't brought up often in court. On the other hand, I think the prosecution's magnifying glass analogy was apt, but for the wrong reasons; it's an older form of upscaling technology that introduces its own distortions, but is accepted as accurate. It is kind of ironic that the format of the video and whatever transcoding has been performed wasn't delved into.
First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it.
Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
Of all cases to lament the lack of evidence for, why this one? We have video from multiple angles covering the entire event, dozens of witnesses, forensic evidence. Lack of evidence isn't the reason this case is polarizing.
