Reply intended to user zwnow who is banned by HN, so I cannot reply directly.
You confuse intent with reality. The social software under discussion was abused immediately for the criminal purpose of spreading falsehoods about men, both with malicious intent and wilful negligence, which is particularly egregious because the victims were not made aware of the slander. Even if they wanted to defend themselves, they were prevented from doing so because of the institutionalised sexism, men are banned from participating on grounds of their sex alone. The proof for this is in the leaks. You failed to take this into account and hence got downvoted into oblivion, not for the reason you claim.
The other facts you write about are part of a different narrative, they are not directly relevant to kanwisher's proposition.
IMO, we should not have any tolerance for platforms that are designed for gossip because of the boy-cries-wolf effect in backlash because it means if a woman is a genuine victim, people will take the priors into account and most will assume she's a liar, too, and this lets the perpetrators off the hook. I do not want to live in such a society. The way out of this is holding women accountable, they should be punished for criminal behaviour with immediate and drastic consequences, and tenfold so for their enablers. The problem would stop overnight.
That's not what I wrote. You know that, I know that you know, and you know that I know.
If you can't have a conversation with a modicum of respect, then GTFO HN. We don't need pages filled with pretence and stupid arguments that go nowhere and change no one's mind.
This was centuries before the UK. The Normans came to Ireland by invitation of Macmurphy, King of Leinster, to help him restore his power, in exchange for promises of territory. This barely counts as a conquest CB, but with certainty not as an invasion.
The Tudor conquest of Ireland involved the English and Scottish. It was before the UK existed, but was perpetrated by the constituents of the UK. At least, the ancestors of the contemporary constituents. Maybe not of Wales though, I don't know.
Fwiw, in the time period you're talking about Wales was just a label for a group of English counties, each fully annexed to England like any other county. The rulers were of Welsh heritage, the Tudors being from Gwynedd in N Wales (I suspect originally Norse, possibly via Ireland).
Strangely, no 'English' people have ruled England since the latter Norman invasion.
Scotland and Wales often try to pretend they weren't part of the Empire and its horrors - in reality their were nobles/toffs/rich nobs from all across GB (at least) doing their part. Barely any of our ancestors were involved in any way other than servitude.
(My family are from both sides of the Anglo-Irish conflicts.)
This is such an interesting insight. Thank you. The part about barely any ancestors being involved apart from servitude is quite a common thread in history since empires began.
Huh, I'd totally missed that. I need to brush up on my history in this part of the world. It's way more interesting than I used to think. Thanks for that
This doesn't pass the smell test. Whenever I've seen the Result or Either type, the definition looked different than what you wrote here. I doubt this composes nicely, with Folktale and fp-ts I can be certain.
Okay the fact that Talon Linux use Dragon via Wine successfully is a big vote of confidence. I was reluctant to recommend that to my friend after seeing Wine's status page for Dragon but I'll give it a go!
> Runes correspond to code points in Go, which are between 1 and 4 bytes long.
That's the dumbest thing I've read in this month. Why did they use the wrong word, sowing confusion¹, when any other programming language and the Unicode standard uses the correct expression "code point"?
Actually no, these are Unicode scalars, not code points; they exclude the surrogate category.
I agree that rune is a very poor name for it. It both mistakes what runes actually are and clashes with the runic block. But C# has adopted the Rune name for some reason.
Rust simply calls these char, and OCaml uchar (unicode char), which are much better choices.
Your use of the fallacy falls short of the reasoning standard expected here on HN. I did not downvote you, because I'd rather engage with words and effect change, but it does not surprise me that someone else did.
If Iryna Zarutska were more Bayesian, the correct prejudice and acceptable amount of racism would have saved her life. Unfortunately for her, her priors were from .ua, not .us.
This is probably the stupidest thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading. In the U.S., most homicide perpetrators are white. And it is extremely rare for a Black person to intentionally kill a white person.
Your own stats actually seems to suggest otherwise, doesn’t it? About 1 in 5 murders of white people are committed by blacks, while about 1 in 10 murders of black people are committed by whites. And in absolute numbers there are slightly more black murderers.
Arguably race is the wrong metric anyway, isn’t it fairly well established that socioeconomic factors play the larger role by far?
The victim was white. Thus the relevant statistic is whether you'd be more likely to be murdered by a white person than a black one. (It's also quite probable that white perpetrators are undercounted, as these are based on conviction rates.)
You can't necessarily see whether someone is wealthy (although poor people tend not to wear expensive clothing or carry expensive items on them). I'm also not aware of a reliable source of statistical information about homicide perpetrators based on the perpetrator's wealth.
Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it.
If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation.
Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations?
The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc.
At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
"Numbers. A customization may be desired to allow sorting numbers in numeric order. If strings including numbers are merely sorted alphabetically, the string “A-10” comes before the string “A-2”, which is often not desired. This behavior can be customized, but it is complicated by ambiguities in recognizing numbers within strings (because they may be formatted according to different language conventions). Once each number is recognized, it can be preprocessed to convert it into a format that allows for correct numeric sorting, such as a textual version of the IEEE numeric format."
You confuse intent with reality. The social software under discussion was abused immediately for the criminal purpose of spreading falsehoods about men, both with malicious intent and wilful negligence, which is particularly egregious because the victims were not made aware of the slander. Even if they wanted to defend themselves, they were prevented from doing so because of the institutionalised sexism, men are banned from participating on grounds of their sex alone. The proof for this is in the leaks. You failed to take this into account and hence got downvoted into oblivion, not for the reason you claim.
The other facts you write about are part of a different narrative, they are not directly relevant to kanwisher's proposition.
IMO, we should not have any tolerance for platforms that are designed for gossip because of the boy-cries-wolf effect in backlash because it means if a woman is a genuine victim, people will take the priors into account and most will assume she's a liar, too, and this lets the perpetrators off the hook. I do not want to live in such a society. The way out of this is holding women accountable, they should be punished for criminal behaviour with immediate and drastic consequences, and tenfold so for their enablers. The problem would stop overnight.
reply