PurpleBoxDragon

8 ms·

1.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Given the gambling example, should we be mad at the advertisers or at the forum for making money off of allowing such ads? If the Gambling Association made a bunch of posters about their new lotto and paid anyone who put them up in building
2.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
A sane system would consider the knowledge and power differences between the average individual and the corporate lawyers who wrote the agreement, along with the one sided nature of the agreement, and void any consent as not having been pos
3.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
> may then pass discriminatory laws for which the Bill of Rights no longer applies against. Cannot they already do this to some limited extent (and perhaps are even required to do so)? For example, laws concerning voting.
4.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>which makes them look very different from normal traffic which kind of by necessity makes them look a lot more like bots. But if they are doing so because they are disabled, and the difference means they receive a worse experience, may
5.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
What about the deafblind?
6.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Blame the laws, not the company. Why not both? If I move to a country that legally allows me to do something horrible, people will rightfully call me a bad person regardless of the legality of the action.
7.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>the answer from the dev team is almost always, "Works as designed". When I say 'works as designed', what I'm actually saying is that I didn't have control over the design, go talk to the ones who did.
8.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>There are cases that I'm all for bashing Google when they don't give the company they're targeting enough time to patch something While I understand the common ethos of our current culture supports this, has there been an
9.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
In C# var is always a place holder for the actual type which the compiler only accepts if it can figure out the type. If you do anything to the var that you can't do to the actual type it will still give you a compile time error.
10.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
And they do. But what exactly is that line. Prurient content that empowers people? Banned. Content that literally allows control over non-consenting individuals based on their gender? Accepted. This is like a serial killer who campaign
11.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>If we enforce some morals and not others in our app stores, who exactly do we choose as the arbiters of morality? Apple and Google are, and their moral guideline is money. They are in the business of making money. If the content seems
12.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
> They’ve been exempt / free from responsibility for far too long. I've seen arguments that the government not allowing these debts to be discharged through bankruptcy was a major cause of the problem. Do we want more market m
13.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Is it that they are helping insufficiently, or that they are using this as a strategy for making money and showing their true colors by engaging in it only to the extent they make money? It is easier to support someone whose intentions are
14.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Getting research subjects is hard. For any significant sort of test beyond a simple survey, it is really really hard. So colleges force their undergrads to be participants so that the graduates have enough fodder to write research papers
15.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Over a reasonable horizon, you weren't profitable. The average worker isn't allowed to do that even when they lose money in a given year. Why is it so naturally assumed to be acceptable for a business to do it? Maybe the tim
16.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>It is likely easy to pronounce in that person's culture, just not for you. Often names will live on long after the family has left the culture. In my own case, my original family name was difficult for anyone in my own family to pr
17.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I think it would have to be a requirement of any money the government spends on code. Otherwise, they will easily defeat the requirement to make it public by passing it through a private company.
18.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
By hiding the code, it makes security through obscurity far more possible. If you force the code to be public, very poor security will be discovered far faster and be more of an issue to the public. While this will also make abusing securi
19.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Nobody, or very nearly nobody, lives up to their "true potential". I agree. But how do we discuss reasons that are or aren't justified to be taken into account. For example you can break down potential blockers into temp
20.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>A huge part of science as a field is consensus. How many were against Einstein for decades? Appeal to consensus among experts is still a fallacy.
21.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Could one say that meritocracy is not meritocracy? No matter what skill you measure, a population with adequate nutrition since conception is going to be far better than a population where malnutrition impacts both pregnancy and children.
22.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>This is not denying the bad behavior of intelligence agencies in the past. But to say it is okay for someone to work for those agencies is to deny their bad behavior in the past. There has been no change to those agencies except they a
23.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I think the legality and the morality of free speech aren't connected. You can have legal but immoral speech and illegal but moral speech (such as the example you give). It is possible to have speech that is, regardless of legality,
24.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Whom is a representative democracy supposed to represent - only educated, upper-class, "quality" folks? I think there is an valid question to what extent should people and views be represented. The simplest idea is that every
25.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>legal and morally right I guess the first question is, if I do something illegal, but either avoid being captured or manage to otherwise avoid prosecution by using money or influence, have I done something wrong, legally speaking? Becau
26.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Isn't the scale of potential damage far different between the two? A failed nuclear power plant can cause harm that will last longer than any human civilization has managed to last. The harm caused by launching Challenger is equal to
27.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Which isn't acceptable either. Based purely on the evidence at hand, our society deems it not only acceptable but not even noteworthy.
28.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Or is it? Look at cases where SEA countries were pushed to stop using child labor in their factories. It was done more by economic pressure than by law, but the end result was that those children ended up much worse off. To the companies
29.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
So if a law gives you a choice in how you choose to censor a work of literature, would it be the artist's self censoring and not an act of government censorship? Assuming we applied the same logic.
30.
by PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
And given that Mitch McConnell only has that ability by consent of the Senate. They could elect someone else in his place if they wanted to (Democrats might very well vote for a different Republican in such a case instead of voting party l

More ›