> If you speak up about this, you are branded a clueless NIMBY resident or even an anti-Semite (there have been a few of such cases in the Netherlands).
Working as intended then. The stones are victors' propaganda meant to terminate any critical thinking related to the mythology of WWII necessary to reshape the occident into what we have today.
Nevermind the very real threat of international Jewish communism in the maelstrom of Weimar Germany. Do not question the destruction of national sovereignty post-Nuremberg to form "international law" (i.e. world gov't). And don't even think of criticizing anything at all to do with the ethnonationalist Jewish state of Israel and the endless aid and support the west gives them. These are borderline illegal thoughts in Europe.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily (exclusively, in the last year) for ideological battle. You can't do that here, and race and religious flamewars are particularly unwelcome.
(for context once flagged, the comment I responded to was spreading a variant of the Elders of Zion "jews try to control us via world government" conspiracy myth)
Pushshift is a single person with some very strong political opinions who has specifically used his datasets to attack political opponents. Frankly I wouldn't trust his data to be untainted.
These models really need to be trained on more official data sources, or at least something with some type of multi-party oversight rather than data that effectively fell off the back of a truck.
edit: That's not even to mention I believe it's flat-out illegal for him to collect and redistribute this data as Reddit users did not agree to any terms of use with him. Just look at the disastrous mess of his half-baked "opt-out" thing that flagrantly violates GDPR: https://www.reddit.com/r/pushshift/comments/pat409/online_re...
Not handy, and I'm not going to spend my evening digging. It may've also been one of the NGOs ideologically aligned with him that credited him for the data + assistance
If it's so egregious is it really that hard to find an example of the bias?
Calling the integrity of a single person operation into question, but then backing out with no evidence and even saying it might not have even been them seems a bit irresponsible.
Web scraping is legal. Reddit users, like all other members of public forums, put their comments on the internet for the whole world to see. And collect, parse, process and manipulate. If you don't want the whole world to have access to your writing, you'd have to join a private forum.
Trying to shoehorn social media posts into some contorted post-hoc bastardization of the concept of privacy is ridiculous.
Shockingly, things that people post to publicly accessible websites are accessible by the public. We're starting to see social damage from this, with facial recognition and authoritarian governments using people's posts for tracking and oppression.
Decentralized services with strong legislation protecting personal data, and globally recognized content licensing will all be needed to prevent future abuse, but everyone currently in the planet over the age of 20 is more or less personally responsible for the massive and naive oversharing. We know better now, but 15+ years ago nobody except Sci-fi authors and fringe activists had a grasp of how badly unprotected globally shared streams of consciousness could go wrong.
> Just look at the disastrous mess of his half-baked "opt-out" thing that flagrantly violates GDPR
Pushshift collects data from Reddit using the same API as the mobile app and public site. It does not have any privileged access to the Reddit database, nor is it collecting any PII that would be subject to GDPR.
You as a user grant a pretty broad license to Reddit when you post content. One of the things the license allows them to do is redistribute the content to other users as well as search indexes and things like the Wayback Machine or Pushshift.
(While I did work for Reddit at one point, these opinions are my own)
> nor is it collecting any PII that would be subject to GDPR
Yeah that's not how that works. Reddit is a free text input interface. I'm free to put PII in any post or comment I want to and you have to comply with data protection laws accordingly if I want my information redacted later on.
The same way you wouldn't just "let it ride" if someone uploaded illegal content - the content itself is what's protected, doesn't matter how Reddit structures its web forms.
That has already been hashed out in the European courts. The processor of the data needs to have a reasonable way of establishing that the data belongs to a identifiable natural person.
But by all means, if you disagree feel free to report Pushshift to the EU regulators. As far as I know Pushshift is based in the US and has no presence to establish a nexus to EU law.
I didn't downvote but streaming services could argue that they're paying for on-demand capacity that has to be available for all paying customers who could decide to stream at any moment in time during their subscription.
On a personal level I also think there's paradoxical social net negatives from overly-insulating people from their own poor decisions while in tandem raising barriers to entry for services (basically, why I choose not to live in California).
So you don't have any issues with the ACLU's heel turn into partisan activism over the past few years? Like reversing position on vaccine mandates, fighting for mask mandates in schools, fighting against school curriculum transparency, fighting to compel speech for teachers (Loudon County)?
It's also "only in the US" where we have the most permissive free speech laws on the planet. Forgive me for expecting a little more from the former top-tier First Amendment defender to keep it that way.
It does not. the ACLU policy shift can be best described as a shift from the defense of individual rights to defense of group or collective rights.
I am ardent supporter of individual rights.
This is largely also the difference between the EU/Canda and the US. where the US has traditionally and correctly placed the most importance on individual rights. Where as the EU places the focus more on society in general or groups in society over the individual
You are obviously not the ACLU, but the invocation of 'protecting the vulnerable' to support the reduction of individual liberties is a slippery rationale.
You could get rid of nearly all civil liberties with that reasoning.
> pushing for teachers to use students' correct pronouns
Well from the point of view of describing material reality, these may well be the incorrect pronouns, if they are self-chosen.
Allowing students to choose their own third-person pronouns, assuming these to be the correct ones where they conflict with reality, and punishing those who don't use said pronouns, is only acceptable if you subscribe to the ideological practices of gender identity.
The ACLU of old would have argued for the opposite position - that these teachers must not be compelled to follow an ideology they don't believe in.
> “fighting to compel speech for teachers” is a bit of a stretch — they were pushing for teachers to use students’ correct pronouns, which is a common courtesy
Well, you’ve convinced me the ACLU is against free speech. Fighting to force people to speak “correctly” and with “courtesy” is the opposite of defending free speech.
Common courtesy was a bad way to describe it. "Prevent a state actor from using their authority to push their personal beliefs (in this case about transgenderism) onto children and single out minorities for disparate and inferior treatment" would be the part the ACLU is opposing. Not the lack of "courtesy"
>increases civil liberties by protecting our most vulnerable
What a bizarre rhetorical maneuver, civil liberties aren't increased by trying to "Protect the most vulnerable", civil liberties are increased by leaving people the fuck alone.
You can acknowledge the fact that there's often a tension between individual freedom and public good and try to defend the ACLU by making a case that they chose what they view as (and many others don't share their view) public good, but twisting words to forcibly paint them as liberty defenders when they are doing the exact opposite is just strange.
>supported mask mandates in some settings to protect vulnerable children
The same children that study after study shows are psychologically damaged and learning-impaired by not seeing their peers' and their teachers' faces[1]. So instead of the few vulnerable children being exempted from school and taught at home or online or in special masked classes, we impose a rule that harms all children and affect, possibly permanently, their psych and development.
Good call.
>government censorship that the ACLU was fighting
No, it isn't government censorship. It's the public deciding what the public schools they fund through taxes can and cannot teach.
This is perfectly legal and perfectly moral, teachers are hired and paid salaries to teach what the school says they should teach. Especially when the allegedly "banned" topics are sexually explicit material featuring minors and debunked pseudo-history invented literally a year ago.
It isn't censorship when your employer forces you to use or not use a programming language, it's how jobs work.
>“fighting to compel speech for teachers” is a bit of a stretch — they were pushing for teachers to use students’ correct pronouns
So, they _were_ fighting to compel speech for teachers, but that's a good thing because pronouns?
>which is a common courtesy in most settings.
No it's not, it's a practice invented 4 to 6 years ago by a minority of delusional individuals living in a very specific place and time, and the vast majority of people in time and space can correctly identify the 3rd person pronoun most suitable for a person on their own and call them by it without any special requests.
> - ACLU supports vaccine mandates because it increases civil liberties by protecting our most vulnerable
> - ACLU supported mask mandates in some settings to protect vulnerable children
Couldn't you support 24 hour solitary confinement or execution for minor crimes in order to protect our most vulnerable? Should the ACLU have switched to protecting the vulnerable in general, rather than protecting those whose freedom to exercise their civil rights is endangered?
I mean, we do breast cancer research in order to protect the vulnerable, but if the ACLU is doing breast cancer research, it's not doing the thing that it specialized in or that people donate to it for.
I say this as someone who supports vaccine mandates and mask mandates.
> “fighting to compel speech for teachers” is a bit of a stretch — they were pushing for teachers to use students’ correct pronouns, which is a common courtesy in most settings.
"Common courtesy" is compelled speech. It's also not a thing that people agree on, so it's not common. It's related to "common sense" in that people only mention common sense when they want to call other people stupid without any evidence, and common courtesy when they want to accuse of being discourteous without any agreed context. To some people, not calling out the person who hired you for sexually harassing you could be common courtesy, or being obligated to have sex with someone who paid for dinner is common courtesy.
If anything, compelling common courtesy seems like the opposite of what the ACLU traditionally did. If nazis marching through a suburb full of holocaust survivors isn't a breech of common courtesy, I don't know what is.
> A number of state lawmakers—many of whom have also fought to censor discussions of race and gender in public schools—have begun introducing vague “curriculum transparency laws” that require schools to post lists of all of their teaching materials online, including books, articles and videos.
> Below is a comment from Emerson Sykes, staff attorney in the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project in response:
> “Government bodies should always strive for transparency, and the ACLU supports any good-faith effort to make public education as transparent as possible to parents and communities. Indeed, transparency is already the norm in many public school systems.
> “But some of these so-called ‘curriculum transparency bills’ are thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools. Their sponsors have said as much.
> “For example, in Florida, one lawmaker recently introduced legislation that would allow teachers and children to be constantly recorded and surveilled in the classroom for signs of teaching and learning about ‘divisive concepts’ around race and gender. We can keep our communities informed without placing children and their teachers under a microscope.
Some states are requiring teachers to publish curricula. Other states are trying to put cameras in classrooms, or prohibit certain topics. The latter are bad, but what does that have to do with the former? I absolutely would want to know my children's curriculum so I can ask them what they learned in school today and know that they're paying attention. And if math is seriously watered down, teach my kids or bring them to Kumon.
The idea that curricula should be withheld from parents, because some might get pissy about their students history class talking about the Civil War instead of "The War of Northern Aggression" seems absurd. I still fail to see why a policy requiring schools "list of all of their teaching materials online, including books, articles and videos." would be considered controversial.
I guess the first step would be to look at who is pushing these laws. Are they known proponents of open government? Are they pushing for similar transparency in all services? Have they been spearheading A drive to improve maths level?
Or are they instead pushing an ideological agenda?
I’m not asking if they’re republicans or democrats, I’m asking what their motives are, what they’re aiming for.
> Refusing the law because of the people pushing is ideological
Of course the people pushing for a certain law makes a difference. Imagine a push to set the term for abortion to 20 weeks or whatever. If it’s being pushed by the AMA based on medical concerns, the issue can be discussed seriously. If it’s being pushed by religious groups based on their interpretation of an old folk story, it can be discussed in a completely different way.
You can stuff any amount of authoritarian "bullshit" as you put it under LGBTQA+MAP territory, using "equity" as a vanguardist spearpoint, which is what the ACLU is doing. Can you honestly say the ACLU that once defended KKK members is the same organization today? One of its former directors, Ira Glasser, thinks it's not the same, and I think most people have enough common sense to agree.
It is, fortunately, a very niche view, but some organizations are indeed pushing for pedophiles to be included in the LGBTQ+. One recently controversial example is Prostasia. Another, from the UK back in the 1970s, is the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). These groups, and others, have been trying to latch on to the gay rights movement for a long time.
A Brahmin Indian immigrant like Sojwal is a pretty good contender for least-oppressed group in America. Top of the charts in income by ethnicity, college admissions, low crime rates.
White people falling far behind east asians in practically every measurement shows what a crock of crap "systemic racism" is.
Maybe the reason is because of stronger food safety laws and tort law.
If some guy used his bottle as a hammer for several months before turning it in for recycling, then someone cuts their hand on a jagged edge or drinks a glass sliver, that's a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Unlikely maybe but at Coca-Cola scale I imagine things like that will happen eventually.
These companies would have to have sophisticated QA processes, or melt down and re-cast the bottles to ensure the food safety of their supply chain against millions of chaos monkeys.
Edit: Here I just did a Google search for the butthurt downvoters that proves there is extra QA that needs to be done. From an Oregon glass bottling reuse program:[1]
> Among other attributes, the machinery features an electronic sensor that uses X-ray equipment to image each bottle, detecting flaws in the glass, as well as mold and other contaminants, Bailey said. That step will reject any bottles that are chipped or contaminated.
Why should laws to protect people be deleted and laws added to protect corporations?
You base laws that protect the well being of the citizenry into a tort reform call. Protecting corporations that abuse the public does not improve the lives of the public. It just improves the profit margin.
The basis of "tort reform" is a panic assessment that lawsuits run wild and the only solution is to indemnify the rich and powerful. This lets them abuse the public even more.
Your link implies this is for liability, but it could just as easily be a filtering step so that the bottles provided are up to a certain quality standard to be readily reused.
The root problem is the bottles are cheaper to make out of disposable material. The cost burden is shifted to The People over a longer term. This is the tragedy of the commons.
That's quite a hypothetical - if there were a rash of lawsuits the lead up to Coke being sold in 2 liter plastic bottles, that would be indicative, but I am not aware of anything like that - and you'd expect there'd be no glass bottles of anything (beer, mustard, maple syrup) if that was the case.
> you'd expect there'd be no glass bottles of anything (beer, mustard, maple syrup) if that was the case
That's completely different - you're confusing recycling with reuse. The bottles you're referring to are made anew from glass that has been smashed into cullet and re-cast into new glass.
What the commenters above are advocating are thicker glass bottles that are washed and reused as-is, i.e. reuse.
Different QA concerns when you're manufacturing fresh glass versus collecting it from randos
Bullshit. The Club Mate I'm drinking right now came in a reused glass bottle. Some of these bottles have more wear on the outside, some of them look pristine.
Hub was created by Chris Wanstrath, one of the original GitHub founders, so it's not surprising there's no reference to it. There's a damnatio memoriae of GitHub's founders and founding story because of certain subcultures that were fostered there by the people they chose to hire.
So dumb, these are the people who literally created GitHub, show them the damn respect they deserve. `hub` (a tool I use to this day) is clearly the predecessor to this official CLI.
No disrespect to hub whatsoever, and it helped inspire much of how we've thought about `gh`. We're fans of hub too and just decided to take this in a bit different direction.
Circa 2014 there was a big blowup of allegations centering around then-CEO Tom Preston-Werner and his wife (not an employee, but worked at the office). Tom resigned as a result.
I don't know why Wanstrath would be excised from collective history though - he was founding CEO (2008-2012) and stepped in again after Tom (2014-2017). Wikipedia says he's now a technical fellow at MS since the acquisition.
If you have fiber you're probably plugging your SFP into an ONT which is already acting like a modem anyway.
> With cable this becomes a lot harder or even impossible due to all kinds of network specific systems such as DOCSIS.
You're probably on a PON which doesn't use DOCSIS exactly but it's still doing TDM and/or WDM multiplexing because you're sharing a laser diode with a bunch of your neighbors - the ONT transceives the multiplexed laser signal. You're still dealing with DOCSIS-like functionality.
By my reckoning, as long as the modem has no public- or customer-facing IP address, it's probably not going to be a vector for easy attacks. It might be accessible from within the ISP network, but if someone has access there then they can probably just tap your line directly, no need for additional exploits.
ONTs typically terminate to Ethernet at the customer premises so it's effectively the exact same thing as a cable modem. So not any more secure than having cable and using the cable company's provided modem.
If you tapped someone's fiber line, all the traffic between the ISP headend and customer premises (OLT and ONT if we're talking fiber) will be encrypted. In fact on a PON network using TDM it has to be, because if you stared down your own fiber you would be seeing all your neighbors' traffic as you're all time-sharing the same laser diode at the ISP headend (because it's a passive network, you will be seeing your neighbor's traffic when the diode is transmitting outside of your designated time cycle).
Anyway my only point was to inform OP that contrary to their belief, they effectively are in the situation of having an ISP-owned modem.
When I was setting this up for an ISP a few years ago the TDM was just a SFP that has its own MAC address inside. Its doing the TDM part inside the SPF itself. When we configured a new customer it was just adding the MAC to the config of an interface on an alcatel router at the hub side. You might not be able to transmit without interference but I bet you could spoof the MAC of a neighbor on the same fiber and listen in.
In the case of Openreach in the UK, the majority of subscriber lines carry PPPoE traffic over VLAN 101 which is bridged on the modem to the consumer equipment.
There's also an additional VLAN 301 for TR069 management traffic, which is used by the HG612 modems (and possibly others) that Openreach used to enjoy flinging at all VDSL subscribers. The modem itself claims an IP address in this VLAN.
Although usually hidden from the end-user, it's actually surprisingly easy to drop yourself onto VLAN 301 even with the HG612 and get an IP address on that management network. I imagine that this is the kind of way that modem exploits become dangerous if they are indeed routable on networks like this.
Industrial plant agriculture kills and displaces untold numbers of small ground mammals. Thus the urban vegan doesn't get to pretend they have clean hands.
A pasture-fed cow kills approximately zero of the same.
Assuming your ethics give equal treatment to all mammals, the rural hobby farmer comes out far, far ahead of the urban vegan.
Cite your sources. This is a statement made by many without evidence.
Sure, if we all had a cow and two acres and lived in a temperature environment where the animals could graze all year, we could have milk after the cow has had a calf. But who impregnated her? And what are you doing with the calf because it needs two acres of grazing pasture too. And then who impregnates her next year and what do you do with that calf? Another two acres? What about the harsh winter or summer? You're going to need to supplement with extra hay. Off to the agricultural supply who... ah crap, they farm. Farming kills fuzzy animals! Now we're terrible again!
Cows, like all mammals, aren't unending milk supply systems. They dry up because they lactate for a reason. Your imaginary hobby farm is an unsustainable system.
Source: I have a grazing pasture and grazing animals.
Is rural hobby farming a massively scalable lifestyle? Would it still be less detrimental to the environment if everyone was doing it? I can’t imagine how much land, forests, wild animals that would displace.
Working as intended then. The stones are victors' propaganda meant to terminate any critical thinking related to the mythology of WWII necessary to reshape the occident into what we have today.
Nevermind the very real threat of international Jewish communism in the maelstrom of Weimar Germany. Do not question the destruction of national sovereignty post-Nuremberg to form "international law" (i.e. world gov't). And don't even think of criticizing anything at all to do with the ethnonationalist Jewish state of Israel and the endless aid and support the west gives them. These are borderline illegal thoughts in Europe.