In practice "Communism" means Leninism and its descendants, or occasionally revolutionary Marxism in general. No one reasonable would ever use it to refer to the likes of Olof Palme.
> him having personally experienced Soviet brutality didn't have the luxury of being ignorant of reality.
Allied troops didn't reach Hungary until 1944, and the Soviet-backed coup occurred in 1947. von Neumann moved to Germany in 1926, and to the US in 1933.
> Von Neumann was right about everything
He wanted the US to start WWIII with a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.
> and the Soviet-backed coup occurred in 1947. von Neumann moved to Germany in 1926, and to the US in 1933.
He personally experienced communism.
> He wanted the US to start WWIII with a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.
If we look at the past 100 years of Soviet existence what can we say has happened?
The spread of soviet arms across all of the world, hundreds of millions dead from famine, war between Russia and Ukraine today.
What is the alternate history where the US does invade the Soviet Union?
Also given we are talking about the smartest person from the 20th century, I'm going to guess his logic when coming to the conclusion of first strike was sound.
Somethings are simply bad for you, without qualification, but for the most part it only makes sense to use "healthy" or "unhealthy" to describe a diet, not individual foods.
Milk has lots of protein, minerals, and fat. Whether that's good or bad depends on how much of those you're getting from other sources.
No, three is just an arbitrary number for their example. The point is not the exact number of roles but the fact that the basic legal unit is the relationship, not the person. For instance a prince-bishop might in principle be subject to an archbishop as a bishop, subject to the Emperor as an imperial prince, subject to the King of Bohemia (who was in turn subject to the Emperor) as the holder of a secular fief, and part of the Polish nobility, all at once.
yes this is true today - some researchers have identified the LEGAL definition of a person taking over from the biological definition of a person, in modern times. If you consider the realms of finance, things are definitely not consistent nor fully resolved.
Yeah, in retrospect I realized the three might be distracting but it was just the example I thought of at the moment. (It gets even worse if the guy also has burgher status in a free city!)
> does HN have some type of special level of skepticism built into it that no where else online does?
Obviously not, but there's no general factor of wrongness lurking behind it. HN has a crippling case of engineer's syndrome, but why should that have anything to do with Polish nationalism?
They're not. Most protected classes are things like "race" or "marital status" - not "black" or "married". (Age is an exception here, at least federally: young people are not protected.)
That's usually what the literal interpretation of the law would be. However, the courts have set the precedence so that it is more or less legal to consider race to increase "diversity". For example, see Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. [1]
With the recent SCOTUS ruling, things have changed a little bit. Unfortunately, that really doesn't prevent people from finding ways to get around the ruling. [2]
Also, you had already applied a whole lot of restrictions to my account before the "request", without any warnings or explanations.
So, who cares? I'm not playing on a level playing field. You are definitely politically biased, in the sense that you don't apply your rules consistently. And you don't seem to care about that.
Also, you guys definitely use dishonest moderation techniques, which you don't like to call "shadow-banning". But the issue isn't what we should call it, it's the dishonesty.
And if the ban was really because you thought I am not contributing to the community (and just using it as tool for "ideological battle), then why one of my submissions is on the front-page at this very moment? [1]
Far from not playing on a level field, we cut you way more slack than you had any reason to expect, given how badly you've been breaking both the letter and spirit of HN's rules.
The restrictions you're taking about, such as rate-limiting, apply to accounts regardless of what ideological flavor they favor, so none of that is relevant. The way to not get restricted is to use the site as intended. That's not bias, that's just trying to have a particular kind of site. This tedious mentality of turning everything one doesn't like into "bias against me" is one of the many tedious things that make ideological battle off topic for HN in the first place.
p.s. I'm sorry for saying "requests" if there was only formal request, but I've replied to you so much that I don't believe you didn't get the message.
> such as rate-limiting, apply to accounts regardless of what ideological flavor they favor, so none of that is relevant
I don't know, I can't even provide a sample larger than one for that. But
I think the rate-limiting thing should be due to something being triggered recently. It's not just a fixed rate limit, like the one you get when you submit too many articles in a short amount of time (which says something like "please don't post so many things that you dominate the new submissions page").
Also, ideological or not, restricting a user's privileges (in my case downvoting, flagging, vouching, probably upvoting and even submitting things) without telling them what the restrictions are, why they are being applied, and a straightforward process to appeal the decision isn't very friendly.
I even had trouble with rate-limiting when posting this very comment. It really seems that you think that I "obviously" should have self-censored [1] if I wanted to continue posting to HN. I don't plan on doing that. There is some value in standing for the good, the true, and the beautiful.
That would be our farewell, I guess. So long, and thanks for all the fish :-)
I'm referring obliquely to a specific nitpick from select CS folks who argue that because the theoretical optimum is not computable in finite time/memory that the statistical basis for understanding ML is irrelevant.
- Don't use effects for things that aren't genuinely effectful
- Put finnicky state management stuff in reusable utils instead of re-implementing it from primitives over and over again.
Neither is React-specific.