+1 for LLWN! Fantastic Chrome extension, especially for language learning. They also have one for YouTube.
However, the language options offered beyond those already provided by Netflix are machine translated. This is good enough to follow along or fill in gaps in your knowledge of the officially subtitled language, but is a subpar representation of the program.
This happens fairly often on German Netflix. When the program's language is neither German nor English, often there are no English subtitles available.
International licensing is obviously complicated, so it's hard to say whose "fault" it is, but my suspicion is that some rights owners will only license the service to use the local language to prevent end users doing digital geo-arbitrage.
For example, the Swedish series "The Bridge" is available on German Netflix, and the trailer has English subtitles, but the actual episodes only offer German subs. AFAICT in the US market this show is only available for streaming as a purchase from Amazon.
The definition of free speech is not at all limited to the absence of legal constrictions. Russell addresses this quite directly in "Free Thought…":
»When we speak of anything as “free,” our meaning is not definite unless we can say what it is free from. Whatever or whoever is “free” is not subject to some external compulsion, and to be precise we ought to say what this kind of compulsion is.
…
Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts. The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search.«
I see all the time in modern discussions that people use the same words but have different definitions in their head of what those words mean.
It might be that in the UK when people say "Free Speech" they mean Bertrand Russell's definition. I give the article that leeway since I don't know. But in America when when people say "Free Speech" they mean the 1st Amendment which predated Bertrand Russell and is more common.
When two people are communicating using common words the definition of those words need to be common otherwise communication does not happen. Otherwise you are just using jargon.
> when people say "Free Speech" they mean the 1st Amendment which predated Bertrand Russell and is more common.
But "free speech" predates both Russel and the 1st Amendment. And, how do you know what they mean? It's not like the debate is settled and there's no controversy around the issue.
We are talking about a company based in San Francisco.
I am pretty sure they changed the phrase to "freedom of expression" and removed the passage that said this was the original definition of free speech so in my mind they corrected the article enough to get their point across without getting bogged down.
Wouldn't changing the phrase to "1st Amendment" get their point across even better, if that's what they meant? It's 8 characters shorter than "freedom of expression", so if anything it's the latter that's bogging things down.
I don't agree that "freedom of speech" in the US is only and always equated with the First Amendment. Even if it were, the article is unambiguously concerned with the broader principle, so we should consider the article in that context.
I pushed back on your mention of the distinction mainly due to a growing tendency in which people dismiss concerns about constraints on freedom of speech/expression/opinion by arguing such concerns are only valid insofar as the First Amendment applies. (Not to say you were doing that yourself.) At best it's a tiresome debate tactic; to the extent it's believed, it's a dangerously narrow misapprehension of one of our fundamental social tenets and civil rights.
> in America when when people say "Free Speech" they mean the 1st Amendment
Isn't it quite presumtive of you to assume that everyone means the same thing by "Free Speech". That seems highly unlikely to me.
> When two people are communicating using common words the definition of those words need to be common otherwise communication does not happen. Otherwise you are just using jargon.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that words or phrases have a single globally umambiguous meaning. Typically maintaining productive communication means avoiding using contested/controversial terms like "free speech" in an unqualified way entirely and creating and exaplaining new terms to disambiguate exactly which version of the concept you mean.
This might be my imagination - but I think you changed "Free Speech" to "Freedom of Expression." If so, this change makes a lot of sense. This change captures the intent of your article without confusion.
It is worthwhile to consider Barlow's legacy--particularly this utopian rhetoric about cyberspace--as examined by Adam Curtis in his 2016 film Hypernormalisation (starting at 40m 35s):-
> nor representative of Java as used outside enterprise development.
It isn't? I've turned down a couple of sweet gigs, at times when I really needed the comfort of work-group structure and maybe even a pay check, because I assumed that (based on my reading) it was all like that. I knew from history, back in the days when it was called Oak that it was a pretty delightful language. Then WS-* and Enterprise OO happened, and I assumed that's where it all went...
I write NLP software in Java and we don't have any of that crap. We have had a couple devs pass through from that world, but we have largely avoided any of the architecture astronaut crap that plagues enterprise development.
It's a shame that the name "Java" has become synonymous with it, since it really isn't a bad language (as of Java 7, at least).
This seems more limited in scope than the article implies, as it will only use existing fiber. From the announcement: "San Francisco—where we’ll bring service to some apartments, condos, and affordable housing properties, using existing fiber."
Ketosis does not require or imply a severe caloric deficit. It requires a very low carbohydrate intake, but you can eat a maintenance level of calories and be in ketosis.
None of the standard guidance (e.g. [1]) for a weight loss program using a ketogenic diet advocates such a severe deficit. Presuming you're a male of average height, 700 kcal is about a 75% deficit. By all appearances, that was the source of your troubles, not keto per se.
However, the language options offered beyond those already provided by Netflix are machine translated. This is good enough to follow along or fill in gaps in your knowledge of the officially subtitled language, but is a subpar representation of the program.