I am very likely naive in these circumstances, but I honestly don't understand how cancel culture can work at all. So there are some voices on twitter who loudly express their immature mob mentality. Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
If it was just a few voices on Twitter, it would be less of a problem. But it's also journalists, academics, grievance entrepreneurs of various stripes — all of whom exert an influence on the general public. It's businesses that don't want to get on the wrong side of those people. And it's employees of those businesses who don't want to get fired.
"Cancel culture" is just a new spin on scapegoating, behavioral contagion, and public shaming, all of which have a very long history.
> Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives
Because ‘sane people’ does not include your employer, who will throw you to the mob to appease them. In the US that also means losing your health insurance, so it can be a death sentence for you or your loved ones.
(I'll regret posting this when I'm starving in a gutter.)
> Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives as if nothing happened?
They can't afford to do that, because this "mob" is actively dangerous. They will slander their enemies with all sorts of baseless accusations, call their workplaces to try and get them fired, manufacture false flag harrassment/cyberbulling and try to attribute it to them, etc. It's no different from the 8chan trolls - in fact they come from adjacent Internet subcultures, quite literally.
I don't see why would you not include the 8channers who do the exact same thing to prominent women in games or anti-vaxxers trying to destroy the lives of doctors/researchers. There's no difference in tactics or goals.
Probably because 8channers and anti-vaxxers aren't successful in getting people fired, because they don't wield any power among legitimate institutions.
They are successful at making people's lives miserable through harassment like death threats and swatting, and unsurprisingly, those tactics are universally reviled.
> Probably because 8channers and anti-vaxxers aren't successful in getting people fired, because they don't wield any power among legitimate institutions.
Notable exception: Donglegate; a person was cancelled, then the person cancelling got cancelled - her company was DDoSed until she was gone*
Hilarious.
* well, that's what I want to believe because it's more interesting; it's possible backlash of people against first cancellation had it's part in that.
Yea, I didn't remember anything about a DDoS being the reason Richards was fired, as opposed to just a PR person making a splash and bringing unwanted attention to her company. A non-central case of cancellation, and I have no real sympathy for Richards as a person, but it still sucks that it happened.
Because it gets very scary once the handful of truly unhinged people start doxxing and posting graphic and detailed threats and showing up at your house.
Just look at the death threats someone like Fauci is getting for doing his job and informing the public. Not that many people want to deal with being a public target to the worst actors in society.
> No, I’m pretty sure it’s just rest mass. The gravitational force doesn’t change based on your kinetic energy.
The energy-momentum tensor (a.k.a. stress-energy tensor) is what determines spacetime curvature, and it depends on both rest mass, kinetic energy, momentum, pressure, and shear stress.
I didn't find it rude at all. The comment that presented the link was pure click-bait. I prefer it when a brief explanation accompanies a link, especially when the link points to a 3 hour long video, as in this case. The YouTube teaser says "explores the workings of the human mind, intelligence, consciousness, life on Earth, and the possibly-simulated fabric of our universe". I certainly agree that the topic sounds interesting.
I didn't know anything about the topic before I clicked the link. Nothing in the comment that introduced the link revealed anything about the topic. And I only clicked the link because I was intrigued by the discussion here about rudeness. I was not motivated to click by the suggestion that watching would be worth my time (without any further details). That I found the topic interesting-sounding came after I swallowed the bait and clicked. Such things happen sometimes. And I still don't know if it actually is interesting, I won't actually know until I have set aside 3 hours to watch the video.
Infinite sets are a useful abstraction, but uncountable infinities can probably be avoided since the Löwenheim-Skolem[0] theorem says that any countable first-order theory has a countable model.
I got the same CAPTCHA, running Firefox 68.4.1 on Linux. Normally when this kind of thing happens, I just close the tab and move on with my life. But this time I tried opening with Chromium instead (version 76.0.3809.100) and then no CAPTCHA was required. Neither browser has Privacy Pass, so why are they treated differently?
I am currently using lxd to manage containers on a headless server. I just found out that lxd on Ubuntu 20.04 has snapd as a dependency, which seems a bit odd. Does anyone know if there is an easy way to install lxd without snap, or should I just ditch it and try some other lxc-container manager?
I've had good results from using `git filter-branch --index-filter` to keep everything related to the exported package and remove everything else. This keeps commit history in such a way that `git log --follow` still shows older commits in the new repo, which is nice. I could never figure out how to make that work with `git subtree`.
Good point. A paradox is something that produces an unexpected contradiction. It must be unexpected, otherwise any trivial false statement such as 2+2=5 would also be a paradox. Russell's paradox is a good example since no one expected a contradiction. The birthday paradox on the other hand does not produce any contradiction, so it's just a case of sloppy labeling.
> the birthday paradox is a paradox for anyone who doesn't already know it
It is a fate of any solved paradox. A paradox is a confusing paradox only to a point when you learn where the contradiction comes from, and how it does it, and how to avoid it.
Algol-60 (and its younger cousin Algol-68) did actually use boldface to distinguish special keywords such as "if", "begin", "true", etc, from the namespace of ordinary identifiers. But that was only used in publications, not in machine-readable source code, since few encodings could support boldface. Instead various stropping[0] methods were used in the implementations of Algol. Today there is really no technical reason why rich text can't be used, but my guess is that syntax highlighting serves a similar purpose without complicating file formats and parsers.
