> 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.
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.)
> 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.
So your entire argument is based on your personal subjective valuation that it is straightforward.
The idea that a homosexual should be thrown from a bridge onto an oncoming train is as straightforward to a good many people as this is to you.
What you are invoking here is really 'US public opinion' or its related 'western world public opinion' circa. 2019.
If this is basically all the substance of your argument, then your position is no better than the moslem over there that thinks blasphemer should be beheaded.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting everyone in Charlottesville that weekend sounds be punished, or just the people you disagree with.
Did Jason say something that led to the driver going berzerk?
Nazis aren't the only ones with more than like disagreements, and most neonazis don't fall into that category either
Decertification is certainly a violation of free speech. It's a way for Twitter to de-legitimize people who'd previously proved their legitimacy the Twitter.
There is no constructive argument to be had and will only result in thread detachment and a stern warning by an HN mod. Let’s move on to a more productive line of discourse.
> 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.
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.
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.
I don't think you actually read the article, because you assumed that i was lobbing ad-hominem attacks instead of directly referencing what the author has written.
> 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?
your own black box idea of "Reasonable" is basically the justification for everything you're saying. I can't really communicate with you when you are setting the criteria for every point on which you and I seem to disagree.
It's totally impossible to debate your opinion of something being "reasonable." I think the tone of the article is not reasonable. You think it is. What is there to discuss if "reasonable" is your test of correctness? It can't be proven or disproven.
And you totally glossed over something from the article that I referenced, instead calling it an ad hominem attack against the author. He straight up linked Oklahoma to Trump as a glaringly high-margin-of-victory state. I'm not disputing the vote tally, but I'm simply saying that the mention of it in the article expressed an opinion on the relationship between red-state conservatism and allegedly bad government.
So your comments aren't actually connected to what the author is saying, and my larger criticism of his bias. I don't buy the idea that the funding and role of the speaker are irrelevant. You seem to be pushing that idea pretty hard. It just seems like you're selectively ignoring certain aspects of the discussion because they don't line up with what you want to believe.
Not only that, but if I say something is a "failing" government entity, then I am absolutely setting a critical tone, and perhaps a pejorative one. You can have efficient, good government among religious folks, or you can have ineffective government among religious folks. There isn't a causality demonstrated by the author, but he still implies that government administered by religious people is naturally ineffective.
You're going through the motions of discussing the article but you're arbitrarily ignoring the context of the article, the bias clearly represented by the author both in the text and in his other work, and the links the author draws between Oklahoma, Trump and religion as a way of disparaging the state.
If you can't see that the author is not cold and unbiased in his arguments, and would clearly prefer to live in a more secular and socialist (why else criticize his own mother for refusing government welfare money) place than Oklahoma, then I don't know how to say anything that is "reasonable" in your view.
I'm fairly certain that the author grew up in Oklahoma, which is why he writes about it. Note the anecdote about his mother, which doesn't make sense otherwise.
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.
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.
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.