Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#101

Post by kmeisthax »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #91
kmeisthax wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about Tate because that's the first thing I found in Google and you didn't provide the proper context. Searching for Romanian Law 107 of 2006 brings up an anti-discrimination statute and an article from civic-nation.org that says[0]: >Anti-racism Act № 107/2006 (preceded by government decree № 31/2002) prohibits the operation of organizations of fascist, racist or xenophobic nature, participation in suc…

It's not clear, at least to me, what's your actual point. You try to argue that other countries besides the US also support free speech; and your argument is that... it's actually good that they don't support free speech. I am a bit confused.

My main argument is that America is not exceptionally free, at least among western powers. Since one of the things you specifically pointed out was an anti-fascism law, I have to at least get over that rhetorical hurdle.

On paper, a law saying you can't be a particular political ideology sounds like you just tore the beating heart straight out of free speech's chest. When you realize, "oh wait it's just the Nazis", it's less bad, and in practice speech is still mostly free in countries with these laws.

And on paper America has the strongest free speech protections in the world. In practice, we've had government censorship regimes for centuries. And our legal system is entirely blind to private censorship enabled by monopolies.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> end of the Black Death occurred over 400 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution “Right before” was hyperbole. The population, and in particular, labor effects, were nevertheless persistent. Western labor was anomalously expensive.

Why would you double down at this point? Just admit you were completely wrong and move on. It's fine, I'm wrong a lot too.

> Why would you double down at this point?

Because the thesis holds [1][2]. It’s far from a controversial theory in medieval and developmental economics.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EUoCBAAAQBAJ&oi=...

[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C51&q=Bla...

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

johnchristopher wrote: post #94
908B64B197 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6) There are several similar but different societies that shared a common ancestry (with the Romans and Greeks) This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive. As trade grew so did the exchange of ideas in Europe. Different regimes had different views on intellectuals. Famously, Da Vinci and Voltaire had multiple patrons through their lives.

> This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive. Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias.

> Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias

No, it’s not. Only measuring survivors is survivorship bias.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#104

Post by johnchristopher »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103
johnchristopher wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This created an intense competition where the best ideas would survive. Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias.

> Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias No, it’s not. Only measuring survivors is survivorship bias.

Which is what's happening here.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#105

Post by JumpCrisscross »

johnchristopher wrote: post #104
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claiming they are best because they survive is survivorship bias No, it’s not. Only measuring survivors is survivorship bias.

Which is what's happening here.

> Which is what's happening here

Not really. It’s saying increases competitive pressure results in a more-competitive output. That’s almost by definition true. Products of competition tend to be fitter than not. If ten fish of a rainbow of colors are introduced to an environment and only the red ones survive, they are fitter. If one looks at the surviving fish and concludes only red fish were introduced to the environment, that is survivorship bias.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#106

Post by rayiner »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> end of the Black Death occurred over 400 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution “Right before” was hyperbole. The population, and in particular, labor effects, were nevertheless persistent. Western labor was anomalously expensive.

Why would you double down at this point? Just admit you were completely wrong and move on. It's fine, I'm wrong a lot too.

Why would you think you’ve dunked on him when you’re the one who is wrong? The divergence between Europe and the rest of the world began in the 15th and 16th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence. The divergence became massive during the Industrial Revolution, but it was underway long before that.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#107

Post by FreakLegion »

rayiner wrote: post #100
FreakLegion wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you’re religious...“inalienable rights” are an illogical concept. That's an odd claim to make so casually. This is something people can and have argued about for thousands of years, in both directions. One direction is: How can we have values in a world without god(s)? (See: Epicureanism, Kantian ethics, or any other system of secular morality). But the other, equally fair direction is: How can we have value…

I didn’t say “God” I said “religion.” “Secular” morality invariably reduces to a system of moral assertions that must be believed but cannot be empirically observed or proven true. To me, that’s just another way of saying “religion.” For example, what’s Kantian ethics? > It states that an action can only be moral if (i) it is motivated by a sense of duty and (ii) its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, object…

> If I autopsy a dead body, am I going to find any evidence of those things in there?

Sure, they're a few centimeters to the right of the evidence of consciousness, just below the evidence of the Pythagorean theorem.

This sounds glib but isn't. What counts as 'evidence' and how much of it is needed for 'proof' are themselves hotly debated. Empiricism is no more a given than morality.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#108

Post by LAC-Tech »

rayiner wrote: post #106
LAC-Tech wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you double down at this point? Just admit you were completely wrong and move on. It's fine, I'm wrong a lot too.

Why would you think you’ve dunked on him when you’re the one who is wrong? The divergence between Europe and the rest of the world began in the 15th and 16th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence . The divergence became massive during the Industrial Revolution, but it was underway long before that.

Because he said that "The Black Death increased labour’s bargaining power right before the Industrial Revolution."

Come on, that's hilariously wrong, and no attempt to walk it back makes it less funny.

Of course, I'm just a bit on edge because I'm writing this post right after the 30 years war has started.

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#109

Post by foverzar »

bhouston wrote: post #7

Similar to the many Saudis imprisoned for speaking out on Twitter: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/16/saudi-woman-gi... https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/saudi-arabia-american-jailed-t... To list a few.... And Elon Musk is using Saudi money to fund his Twitter: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/2022/10/31/saudi-prin... It is unlikely that Elon will mention anything of this to the Saudi's of course. They a…

> And then the US government protected Saudi Arabia from any lawsuits in the US

I've just randomly clicked this link and... How in the world did you even manage to phrase it like that?

Why do people lie in their summaries that often these days? Do you seriously expect that people are actually that ignorant that they won't call you out?

Just 5 seconds into the article and knowing what a "diplomatic immunity" is all you need to see that the summary has nothing to do with an actual subject of the article.

Is anyone else disturbed by how easily people twist and erase information in their sum-ups? What's up with that?

Re: Wikipedia editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

#110

Post by rayiner »

FreakLegion wrote: post #107
rayiner wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say “God” I said “religion.” “Secular” morality invariably reduces to a system of moral assertions that must be believed but cannot be empirically observed or proven true. To me, that’s just another way of saying “religion.” For example, what’s Kantian ethics? > It states that an action can only be moral if (i) it is motivated by a sense of duty and (ii) its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, object…

> If I autopsy a dead body, am I going to find any evidence of those things in there? Sure, they're a few centimeters to the right of the evidence of consciousness, just below the evidence of the Pythagorean theorem. This sounds glib but isn't. What counts as 'evidence' and how much of it is needed for 'proof' are themselves hotly debated. Empiricism is no more a given than morality.

> Empiricism is no more a given than morality.

And now you’re in woo land. Once you leave the land of empiricism you might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Post reply on HN