Browser competition doesn't matter much for interoperability, because they don't restrict what sites you can use. It's only a risk if browsers start banning sites like the app stores do.
And open source Chromium and Firefox are bulwark against that, with active fork ecosystems.
It's weird to have this tone of hating on someone for not having two homes. If he can live without occupying a giant property, good on him. Why should only rich people get allotments?
Any tax he owes can be deducted from his carbon/pollution under-footprint.
The kind of management talent that declined to build IBM PC hardware at exactly the time when it could have given them massive competitive advantage over companies making a similar mistake?
That mistake came later, after the company was already extremely successful. Left up to the engineer alone, there wouldn't have been a company to fail.
Yes. Another common example is that in languages without pointers, the lack of aliasing enables optimizations that are impossible for languages with pointers.
Also, C compilers generate efficient code by assuming undefined behavior cannot happen. (This sometimes corrupts buggy programs, because the type system can't guarantee undefined behavior isn't triggered.)
11 comments on HN so far, discussing politics and complaints about Twitter, and so far not one has responded to the content of the article, in which Twitter claims to have locked every account that posted a picture of a rape victim's family, violating its policy on doxxing.
It's a photo-op, not doxxing. This is tantamount to accusing the family of doxxing themselves considering they invited him to meet with them.
> Sharing a picture of his meeting with the girl's family on Wednesday, Rahul Gandhi had tweeted in Hindi, “Parents' tears are saying only one thing -- their daughter, the daughter of this country, deserves justice. And I am with them on this path to justice.”
This article has more details. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/tech/twitter-india-congre... The opposition party clearly had the permission of the parents to post the photo. The Indian government appears to have requested of Twitter to remove the photo since it was used for political purposes by the opposition.
It's clear from context because the photos are from a meeting with the victim's family. You can see the censored photos here: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/rahul-gandhi-... I don't know why India has a law against showing photos of rape victims families. Perhaps because rape brings shame to the victim's family in some circles. However, if you are publicly meeting with a national politician you clearly do not ascribe to that view and it is obvious that you wouldn't mind being seen in photos with that politician.
I don't think I (or probably most others here) have enough information to intelligently comment on that.
Is the family of the rape victim consenting to their image being used, or not? Is the picture and/or identity of the family widely broadcast in the media, or not? Is the picture portraying things in a particularly unique and politically important light (like the napalm girl picture), or not?
Edit: I see other people starting to bring in this sort of information now, but I don't think it's surprising that early comments are on the content of the article.
Exactly. It's hard to tell if that was precisely what happened (I blame the cultural and linguistic translation barrier), but if it was, Twitter's TOS on doxxing is very clear.
The locking is necessary as a temporary and immediate mitigation strategy to minimize harm until the nature of the content is determined or the content is removed, rendering locking moot. Standard procedure.
>"small penis" was Chrichton making a mean joke, not a legal theory.
I had already used the adjective "informal" to describe the so-called "rule" so there was no need to nitpick that it wasn't "legal theory".
In any case, it seems like you didn't carefully read the wikipedia article so your attempted correction is not accurate. You've got your timeline mixed up.
The "small penis rule" was mentioned by journalist Dinitia Smith in 1998 (6 years before Michael Chrichton used it in his 2004 book) in a New York Times article. She was relaying a legal strategy told to her by attorney Leon Friedman.
Excerpt from the NY Times 1998 article:
>Leon Friedman, who was Sir Stephen's American lawyer in his dispute with Mr. Leavitt and who moderated the Authors Guild panel, observed that ''under New York State law, you cannot use a person's name, portrait or picture for purposes of trade without their permission.'' You can, however, use a person's identity if you don't use his name, he added.
>That is, unless you libel them. ''Still, for a fictional portrait to be actionable, it must be so accurate that a reader of the book would have no problem linking the two,'' said Mr. Friedman. Thus, he continued, libel lawyers have what is known as ''the small penis rule.'' One way authors can protect themselves from libel suits is to say that a character has a small penis, Mr. Friedman said. ''Now no male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, 'That's me!' ''
> He described how the judges found Murray guilty of “jigsaw identification,” which refers to the “possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.”
Why isn't every advertising/marketing data broker in jail for "jigsaw identification"?
In Scottish law -- and in English/Welsh law in parallel (the legal systems are different) -- there is no absolute right of free speech, like the US first amendment. Consequently, exposing the identity of witnesses (and in some cases the accused and the victim) in a criminal trial is itself a criminal offense.
Note the important bit here is in a criminal trial. Murray is going to prison because he was found guilty of actions which threatened to cause a mistrial in a criminal case, not because he was deanonymizing advertising/marketing data.
I'm pretty sure journalists have actually, non-hypothetically caused mistrials in criminal cases through their reporting in the UK and not been jailed for it. In fact as far as I can tell none of the journalists who did this in the UK have been jailed, at least not in the last few decades.
There is a reason why the 1st amendment is the 1st of the amendments - this has happened for a long time not just in England but elsewhere.
It's VERY convenient for those in power to selectively apply laws like this, and overall bad for society. But like most cases, as long as it isn't too blatant, it doesn't rise to the level of common outrage.
It got bad enough in the past to make the top of the stack of 'stuff to fix in v2' here.
The constitution though is just words on paper if people don't follow it day to day, and you can see examples of steady erosion from it (gag orders, national security orders, etc.)
> Why pay $1400 when you can get the same results for free?
You can increase your chances of finding water just by accurately reading the geology, the plant cover, the soil type, etc. Even if dowsing doesn't "work", that doesn't mean that dowsers don't have real skills that would be expensive for you to acquire.
Similarly, just because psychic powers might not be real, it would be a huge mistake to think that you're going to be able to cold read someone as well as a professional psychic.
And open source Chromium and Firefox are bulwark against that, with active fork ecosystems.