finite_jest

5 ms·

1.
by finite_jest 5y ago
That is extremely unlikely to be true. The guests don't own the copyright, so they can't leverage that. Also, some of the guests are protesting this on Twitter.
2.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> Predictably, people break out the C-word. Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.
3.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I'm sure the motivation of many book burners of the past was also to save the would-be readers from eternal hell. Possible good motivations don't justify censorship. You could argue that in this particular case censorship probab
4.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I don't think that's a good framing of the issue. Otherwise, why is merely making the "cancellers" face the "consequences" of their actions bad?
5.
by finite_jest 5y ago
No, it's not representative of how free speech would look like. "The coven of the witches" problem arises in part because of all the witch-hunting going on.
6.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> Forgive me but what are you protesting exactly? Corporate censorship. [1] > At some point you have to look in the mirror. I don't appreciate your personal attack. You are not arguing in good faith, and I'm done responding
7.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> They can do whatever the fuck they want. If that's your framing, you should also grant that we can also protest whatever the fuck we want. This is a trite and unfruitful line of argument.
8.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> every periodical does. I’m not sure what the point of complaining about that is. That is broadly correct, though not all of them are equally biased. However, journalistic objectivity [1] is something we could demand them to strive for.
9.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I don't think that's the reason. Hanlon's razor is just a heuristic, we shouldn't blindly and naively apply it to everything. I think you can see how biased Mother Jones is by taking the headlines on their front page, an
10.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I think that is is an excellent and relevant example of press bias, which @legerdemain was commenting on. Generic straw mans are not conducive to good faith arguments, HN or elsewhere.
11.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN To be fair, your comment is objectively more generic and closer to a "copy-paste objection" than the GP's. I have no idea how
12.
by finite_jest 5y ago
We don't have a moral duty to make eighth-graders see depictions of everything that is heinous and ugly about the world.
13.
by finite_jest 5y ago
It has a "FIND GAME" option if you'd like to play with random people.
14.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I don't know, but Brendan Eich (Brave's CEO) [1] is pretty active on Twitter, and I think he used to answer the questions people asked. You could try asking him there. Let us know if you get an answer. Also, I apologize for being
15.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Come on, what kind of clickbait is that? So Brave has an opt-in option to see ads [1], and they have some measures to protect against fraud. They are simply being honest about the fact that using a VPN would increase the chance of being mar
16.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Maybe, but still P(doing something nasty | "Great question") > P(doing something nasty)
17.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Right, and a standard response to cryptopunk fundamentalism is pointing at rubber-hose cryptoanalysis [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
18.
by finite_jest 5y ago
I changed the title, as the original was misleading and clickbaity: "Elections Canada: 205,000 mail-in ballots were not counted". The original reporting this is based on is by Blacklock’s Reporter [1] which looks like a better sou
19.
Elections Canada: 205,000 mail-in ballots late, cancelled, or lost in the mail(torontosun.com)
2 points by finite_jest 5y ago|1 comments
20.
by finite_jest 5y ago
It is a technological problem too. Telegram has a much better UI/UX than Signal, and not having end-to-end encryption by default is part of the reason.
21.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Based. Abelson and Sussman, of SICP fame, are among the signatories. So is Ronald Rivest, the R in RSA (and CLRS). Chomsky too.
22.
by finite_jest 5y ago
The title is slightly misleading. It would be more accurate to change "its own archives" to "its reruns of the old shows". That's bad enough though. They are making "woke cuts" [1] to old shows, lest their
23.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Antibiotics rock, and I think penicillin is rightly praised as being as closed to a Panacea as it gets. However, we shouldn't underestimate the positive effect of better hygiene, vaccination, and advances in surgery techniques. I share
24.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Based. Nullius in verba [1]. The whitewashing of censorship is accelerating the erosion of trust in the institutions, and it's refreshing to see a long-standing institution take a bold stance. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org&#x
25.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead,
26.
by finite_jest 5y ago
> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere. I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I th
27.
by finite_jest 5y ago
TBH, that still doesn't make sense to me, but I don't really know much about how school libraries operate in Texas. I found an example of what you were referring to though (thanks to @shankr linking to a relevant Twitter thread).
28.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Thanks for the link. Also corroborated by the statement on the school's website: [1]. That seems overly paternalistic and prudish to me. [1]: https://www.granburyisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&Dom...
29.
by finite_jest 5y ago
Recent example of literal book burning in Canada: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario...
30.
by finite_jest 5y ago
In the sense of school boards removing books from curricula, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a recent example. [1] In the sense of removing books from bookstores, Amazon did ban a broad category of books. [2] In the sense of literally

More ›