661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to FANG companies not realy
FANGs defeat themselves by putting themselves in COL areas that are really high thus reducing their relative compensation to 1/3 or less, even with all that stock. That's pretty easy for govt to beat.
It boggles my mind, with the current state of affairs, the number of people actively organizing to eliminate or curtail our fundamental human rights. It seems to me that 1st and 2nd amendment rights are both under particularly intense bombardment these days.
How do you think the 2nd amendment is under assault? If you look at the list of things our youth were marching for[1], it doesn't say anything about taking guns away. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to walk around with a rocket launcher or semi-automatic weapon. Also, there's no way in hell any group of citizens can fight the US army these days so it seems like a moot point.…
Afghanistan is the 8th poorest nation in the world [1]
The US spent over a decade and over a trillion dollars fighting there [2]
We did not decisively "win" by any measure [3]
[1] https://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-1...
[2] https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-afghanistan-war-timeline-...
[3] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-will-never-win-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that these strikes will occur one way or the other, Holy poopers, no. Drone strikes are not like premarital sex. The fact that we're _here_ (that being autonomous killer robots firing missiles from the sky to kill "bad guys") and no one bats an eyelash, means we're already in some kind of massive fail scenario. We could, for example, go back to the rule of law. You know, before we believed that every bad guy…
I kind of agree with you. This is dystopian at this point. And I don't see how permitting this sort of thing wouldn't have massive consequences down the road, but then again I'm the guy who thinks intense negotiation at a table with a mediator, and/or deciding a dispute with some sort of sporting event, is a superior solution to simply butchering people with explosives en masse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater". I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire. Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event
So, _Schenck_ has largely been overturned on a number of occasions, but the following (untested) likely still holds as punishable (but not forbidden against through ante-hoc regulations): * _Falsely_ shouting fire * in a crowded theater * for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common law (root of UK and US law) does have the right to self defence. And this "other countries" mm a lot of this had constitutions where the citizens where given some rights by the king and not have universal rights.
I believe UK law is not as strong as US laws regarding right to self defense [1]. https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/pensioner-arrested-stabbing-susp... [2]. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1361028/Martin-is-cl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Finally, you make a very common mistake when you assert "you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater". I thought the 'mistake' would be assuming that this action is prohibited even in the event of a fire. Now I question if it is assumed to apply unconditionally, even during a fire. And if so, what is the appropriate way to deal with such an event
So, _Schenck_ has largely been overturned on a number of occasions, but the following (untested) likely still holds as punishable (but not forbidden against through ante-hoc regulations): * _Falsely_ shouting fire * in a crowded theater * for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others
We started at submission about Google employees waving around a paper tiger petition, we proceeded to top ranked reminder to everyone of DARPA and how military funding is the One True Way, then on to crypto export controls, rolling onward into a gun control debate, conflating semi-automatic weapons with rocket launchers, and finally into yes, the meaning behind "fire in a crowded theater."
The comment section on HN is now second only to the comments from Yahoo news stories. Keep up the great work everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
> I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? From our own human nature, actually. Think about this for a minute. Would a normal person be willing to believe something because you were forced to? If someone was violently attacked, would they not fight back? By recognizing these aspects of human nature as something fundamentally not controllable by laws, we can instead fo…
If human nature is ultimately "not controllable by law", then that would certainly apply broadly, not just to cherry picked aspects of it.
Certainly assault, murder, rape, theft, harassment, abuse, cheating, and the like are facets of feral humanity; just as much as positive traits like self-preservation, compassion, parental instincts, social bonding, etc. Law usually stands in a directly contrary position to the former list, to wide agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair enough but you have to decide if your cool with that and resign if you have moral beliefs that run counter to your employers You come across as wanting that sweet sv $ and benefits without having to make any moral choices - if you got to work for CNI company's you know what the deal is. And before you ask yes I did face that at my first job when I analysed some high speed film from one experiment and thou…
I disagree strongly. Employees are a stakeholder in the company, and if they can band together to enact change on the companies goals for a moral purpose, then that is an option as well. If their efforts fails, they can choose to resign, or take other actions as employees in history have. It's not the only option, it may be the only option ultimately that succeeds in removing yourself from complicity.
You will find that in general that a lot more googlers probably wouldn't take that view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to foreigners. Classifying encryption as a munition meant that I have never truthfully answered all the visa waiver questions on entering the US.
Fischer v Massachussetts[1] (and other cases won by the second amendment foundation) holds that resident aliens are counted amongst "the people" for purposes of second amendment protection (and other rights too!) [1] - http://ia800500.us.archive.org/20/items/gov.uscourts.mad.135...
I believe GP was referring to times s/he's entered the US on a visitor visa of some sort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they did tho. At least to Stalin. Had they not, all of Europe would now be Soviet Union. This is also why Japan was nuked — to ensure compliance, and create better leverage in negotiations. Otherwise the red army could just continue as far as it wished to go and take over the rest of Europe.
I would strongly argue that the motivation for nukeing Japan was not to give the Soviets an impression but to ensure that American troops didn't have to land on hostile beaches on the Japanese mainland. The decision was mainly made to save American lives by forcing a Japanese surrender
The whole reason Japan started their program of military expansion in the first place was to guarantee access to natural resource, e.g., petroleum, needed by their industry.
By 1943 Japan was facing chronic shortages of petroleum products, rubber and other essential supplies because of interdiction by the US Navy's "Silent Service" (submarine force). And that was before Japan lost most of her navy, most of her large transport ships (by 1945 Japan was reduced to using mostly small wooden transport ships) the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa (which while in Japanese hands could be used to operate aircraft to give Japanese shipping some protection from the US Navy).
It is unlikely that Japan could have done much more than feed itself after 1945.