Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear
[flagged]
Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
71–80 of 139 posts
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…
[flagged]
> there is no way you would be censored (banned) for calling a woman a woman or a man a man. Now, speaking biological and factual truths can get you censored
You can claim this and reach to the transphobic dog whistle but these "biological truths" aren't actually true and the only world in which they are is a grossly oversimplified version of reality that ignores all of the messy complexity of how biology actually works.
This isn't a matter of "truths being insulting or discriminating". It's a matter of stopping people from using their complete misunderstanding of biology as an excuse to try and harass, other, or discriminate against groups out of prejudice.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear
[flagged]
I think you're reaching for outrage. I don't see anywhere in this comment's ancestry where anyone said anything resembling that.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a reference to the very last paragraph of the article.
And the title.
Not really? The title is a reference to the article's topic of systematically manipulating time standards (which results in the time for the entire company getting slowly sent "into the past") for the purpose of avoiding complexities like leap seconds, etc.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aye, that makes sense (not the slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.
[flagged]
It’s an awful position. People who say things like that are assholes that I never want to associate with. And giant social media companies should not censor speech like this.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you're reaching for outrage. I don't see anywhere in this comment's ancestry where anyone said anything resembling that.
That’s literally what the new Facebook policy is that she’s referring to in the article… it was previously banned, zuck has decided that it’s now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged behavior.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#77The guy isn't sending the company 50 years back.
I come from a post-communist country which had a lot of censorship. It was happening 50 years ago as well (it was happening since the end of 40s to the end of 80s). Call me sensitive. ;)
The guy is removing the company from 50 years back.
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't even show ms. Add something like +%s%N (ns) to the options if you want finer resolution.
The problem is using watch you have no control* over when in each second it's getting the time, so it could be nearly a second late (e.g. it's getting the time once per second, but happens to be doing it when it's a few milliseconds away from ticking over to the next second). * Okay, you have a little control in that you can press enter, or otherwise set it running, at a particular moment.
So don't have any delay:
while true; do date +%s%N; doneRe: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're reaching for outrage. I don't see anywhere in this comment's ancestry where anyone said anything resembling that.
That’s literally what the new Facebook policy is that she’s referring to in the article… it was previously banned, zuck has decided that it’s now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged behavior.
I understand your objection to the policy, I just don't understand where in this thread you latched onto anything objectionable. At most the OP said the slurs don't make sense (really they didn't even say that, they just clarified the subject of what they were saying made sense).
Are you saying the slurs DO make sense? Or is it possible you added some words to what the OP actually said and then objected to that?
Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know full well that Trump is a public figure. Where I live, different protections of personal rights exist for private people, such as typically engaged on social media and public figures. Neither is or ever was charging anyone who writes an insult online a proposed or practiced option but simply deleting derogatory comments.
Your notion of “private people” is entirety arbitrary and is an obvious loophole for abusing the system by depriving some of their rights.
And yet, it carries legal meaning in the US, thanks to NY Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.
This is not GP's "notion" this is an actual thing under US law that the US Supreme Court created back in the 1960's. As with all rights, it depends on the country, but in the US Public Figure Doctrine (and the concept of a Limited Purpose Public Figure) are both real things, with a court deciding if Public Figure Doctrine applies to a given case or not.