π Quick links thread
-
Americans are often really surprised by just how far north Europe really is.
Meanwhile, Canada goes all the way to the north pole.
-
continental US (IE except Alaska)
I think you are looking for contiguous US, not continental. AK is included in continental but Hawaii isn't, contiguous excludes both.
-
TIL. I wasn't sure on terminology.
-
Canada goes all the way to the north pole.
I think that Russia would dispute that. Denmark might as well (because Greenland).
-
@tar said:
Canada goes all the way to the north pole.
I think that Russia would dispute that. Denmark might as well (because Greenland).FTFY
-
This is what I would call thinking outside the box
-
We need a button...
-
I thought here it is the same as the like button! you know the one with stupid heart shape
-
##amidoingitright.com?
-
#amidoingitright.com?
According to the video it depends, you maybe doing it wrong depending on its religious beliefs.
-
The micro-aggression thread is fucked up so I post this here:
One of the few moments I do not want to travel to the future
-
One of the few moments I do not want to travel to the future
One of the times when it's important to stand up and tell people that freedom of speech is particularly important for protecting opinions that you don't want to hear. Freedom that only permits one voice is not freedom.
-
So... Students got triggered by the professors telling them not to microagress anyone?
Anyone got some popcorn? This is gonna be fun...
-
Only if it's preventing using that freedom to harm someone.
-
Only if it's preventing using that freedom to harm someone.
There's always a difficult boundary between the right to say something and the right to not be hurt by another's speech. It's important to keep the restrictions on speech as limited as possible though; we know from history that restrictions on speech have been used to cause huge harm by leaving the inexcusable unchallenged. Which isn't to say that saying something that is offensive should be free of consequences, or that inciting others to harmful actions should be free of blowback.
What I hope for is that Yale tells its students that they absolutely, categorically will not sack someone for telling them to consider others feelings, and that when some members of the student body insist on behaving like petty fascists instead of championing everyone's free speech, they're going directly against the ethos of the university and should feel ashamed.
(FWIW, the most offensive thing I encountered during my undergraduate life was the Modula-3 compiler we used for some courses. Not really a freedom of speech thing though; it just sucked.)
-
I'd expect a car I own to priorize my family life over other people. Specially if the other people are disrespecting transit laws like in that example image. (no crosswalk, not looking before crossing, etc). Perhaps it should be a configurable option, giving weights according to its owner moral beliefs.
Self driving cars are supposed to get safe enough to make this choice to be very rare anyway.
-
Anyone got some popcorn? This is gonna be fun...
Did you watch the video at the link? Ace covered this:
http://minx.cc:1080/?post=359966
Below is what happened when a man calmly attempted to explain free speech to hysterics and barbarians. You'll get profanity, a screamed "BE QUIET!," a pronouncement that college is not for intellectual freedom and trial but for "comfort" and feeling "at home," and yes, an actual foot-stomp.
-
the right to not be hurt by another's speech.
I'm an American. There is no such right.
People get hurt by punches and kicks, not words. If you are "hurt" by words, the problem is yours, not the speaker's.
-
And yet we still have laws about libel and slander.
-
Around here you usually get 1 euro for your emotional damage.
-
Those defame one's character/credibility though, as opposed to hurting their feelings. N.B.: obscenity laws are a whole 'nother ballgame, and they're dumb/shouldn't exist, but more what you guys are trying to get at.
-
And yet we still have laws about libel and slander.
That's because, for example, if you lie about someone and damage their reputation, other people will not associate with them, and they might lose their job or business. It's clearly harm at a distance, but it's something that definitely causes harm.
-
if you lie about someone and damage their reputation
Is causing harm with words. Per @blakeyrat:
If you are "hurt" by words, the problem is yours, not the speaker's.
The point is there are other harms than your feelings.
-
Is causing harm with words.
I get what Blakey's saying. However, ruining someone's reputation with third parties, is most certainly a thing, as anyone who's brought the Streisand Effect down upon themselves knows. But I would say it's different than directly insulting someone.
-
But I would say it's different than directly insulting someone.
From an insult sure, but what @blakeyrat was responding to was that there should still be limits on what can be said. Personally I don't like the existence of libel or slander laws at all, but I can see why some want them to exist (and they very much are a restriction on free speech).
-
Personally I don't like the existence of libel or slander laws at all
I am tentatively OK with the concept of a law permitting you to damage someone else's reputation with third parties by lying, because, like I said, that's different from directly insulting someone. I would consider the former to be in the class of ensuring dirty tactics aren't used for an unfair advantage.
-
And yet we still have laws about libel and slander.
Right; and they only apply to words that cause material harm. With a high barrier to entry. You can't bring someone up on slander charges because you "felt icky". You have to demonstrate actual material harm.
At least, in the US you do.
EDIT: also needless-to-say, but you people are idiots so here I am saying it, you can't charge someone with libel or slander if the thing they said was factually true.
-
Around here you usually get 1 euro for your emotional damage.
Question is: is it enough to buy a beer?
-
Answer: no
-
you can't charge someone with libel or slander if the thing they said was factually true
This was argued in the uk fairly recently when Simon Singh was sued for saying true things about chiropractic. He was fighting for a while before getting the judgement that libel has to be untrue, not just cause harm
-
If you are "hurt" by words, the problem is yours, not the speaker's.
If someone falsely accuses you of being murdering rapist, you'd be interested in a claim of slander or libel against them. The kind of hurt I was talking about was not the βoh, I'm a bit sad because you said some bad wordsβ sort of hurt, but the much more substantial hurt of having your reputation shredded without cause. Words can incite others to commit violence or to treat people badly, so it is not reasonable to say that untrue words must always be free of consequence.
Which isn't to say that if someone calls you a hyperflatulent seventeen-headed space alien from the planet Zarg-18, you're going to have much of a legal recourse in that case. Mere untruth does not make something libellous or even injurious. I'm guessing that the courts have figured this all out better than I have.
-
If someone falsely accuses you of being murdering rapist, you'd be interested in a claim of slander or libel against them.
Maybe you'd be interested in it, but you wouldn't be able to get a settlement until you could demonstrate actual physical harm.
-
-
This is what happens when you have such loose typing that the string "Null" is considered equal to Null. Not even Oracle is that dumb
-
Wife beaters. β¬1 a bottle at 5%.
This is what happens when you have such loose typing that the string "Null" is considered equal to Null. Not even Oracle is that dumb
Don't be ridiculous "Null" has an uppercase "n" it would have to be lowered cased before it would be considered null.
-
SELECT CASE WHEN NULL IS null THEN ':wtf:' ELSE ':doing_it_wrong:' END
-
SELECT CASE WHEN NULL IS null THEN ':wtf:' ELSE ':doing_it_wrong:' END FROM DUAL
OTFY.
-
@Jaloopa said:
SELECT CASE WHEN NULL IS null THEN ':wtf:' ELSE ':doing_it_wrong:' END FROM DUAL
OTFY.
select decode( null, null, ':wtf:', ':doing_it_wrong:') jeff_is from dual;
-
Both of those return
:wtf:
. This one returns:doing_it_wrong:
:SELECT CASE NULL WHEN null THEN ':wtf:' ELSE ':doing_it_wrong:' END FROM DUAL;
-
Both of those return .
By definition, Jeff isn't , so he must be . That's my joke, at least.
-
-
select case when null = null then ':wtf:' when null != null then ':doing_it_wrong:' else 'FILE_NOT_FOUND' end
-
select case when null = null then ':wtf:' when null != null then ':doing_it_wrong:' else 'FILE_NOT_FOUND' end FROM DUAL
OTFY, you MSSQL savage.
-
I got an error so I created my own DUAL table
CREATE TABLE DUAL (dummy VARCHAR(1)) INSERT INTO DUAL VALUES ('x'), ('x')
Now I'm getting doubled up results. Do I need a
DISTINCT
on myGROUP BY
clause?
-
select distinct 'Yes' from dual group by 'Yes';
'YES' ----- Yes
-
Google works on generating responses for mobile email:
Another bizarre feature of our early prototype was its propensity to respond with βI love youβ to seemingly anything.
-
Google seem to have no faith in me. I have an email asking if I've contacted the person who sold me a dodgy car, and all three auto responses are all various forms of "No"
-
and all three auto responses are all various forms of "No"
You should tell your wife that you love her more, is my take away.
-
An article about visual trees in WPF and how misusing them can kill the performance of applications with complicated layouts.
-