> if I say "fuck you" it's not really freedom of speech. I directly insulted you, I didn't even want a conversation, I directly harmed you.
But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.
#SticksAndStones
That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.
Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.
> Freedom of speech does not mean one is free from the consequences of speech.
But who should be held accountable for those consequences?
For example, what about a woman who's struck by a visibly drunk man after telling him to "fuck off"? Should she be held accountable because she should have known better? Should the man be held accountable for his actions regardless of what she said? What about when the consequences of a statement are entirely unintended and unpredictable, which is happening more and more often these days? What about when a joke between friends becomes a public relations nightmare when overheard outside the necessary context?
This is such a meaningless slogan I don't know where to begin. Nobody expects their speech to be free of consequence, otherwise they'd never say anything in the first place. What they want is speech which achieves their intent, which is rapidly becoming all but impossible. It's like coding, only without the pair programming, test driven development, and strong typing.
You know, I have to agree. My gut reaction is "blame the policy not the technology", but after looking closely, I'm struggling to see how this feature could ever be applied towards the user's best interests.
I can say with absolute certainty that (at least in America) reinstalling Windows does NOT void your warranty (despite what any rep may tell you), and selling you a device with a problem they assured you didn't exist is fraud.
I would return the laptop for a refund (regardless of how long you've had it), and if they refuse to take it back (which they likely will), file a small claims case in NC (I know, not necessarily an option depending on where you are). They may try to argue that you 'agreed' to arbitration, but because they misrepresented the quality of the device, you can argue that agreement was 'signed' under false pretenses, and isn't legally binding.
I'd also post recordings of your support calls online if you have them, or call back and record new ones if you don't. Posting those online does not run afoul of the broadcast laws which apply to phone recordings, and recording calls with only one party aware is legal in all but 11 states, and everywhere once they tell you they're recording the call.
I'm doing the same damn thing with the tech companies that screwed me over, so I made sure to do my homework.
> Am I the only one that really hates the carpenter analogy?
Apparently not, but the analogy is completely valid for what is being compared. A chair is designed for a specific purpose, so imagine if it kept changing in ways which were out of your control and either unrelated to, or made it less fit for, that purpose.
The problem I have is with how the article is using the term 'finished' to mean 'functionally complete', which is causing unnecessary confusion. Porting to new platforms and fixing security issues should not alter how functionally complete an app is, only address problems which either interfere with that purpose, or with the purpose of other apps running on the same system.
Even then, the article still isn't about functional completeness, but feature creep, and perhaps in the process the dangers of not using the right words for what you mean.
> A finished project is a dead project. If it isn't improving, it's dying.
Define 'improving', because there have been quite a few major projects that have been getting 'worse' (slower, buggier, less secure, more bloated, breaking changes, feature creep, inconsistent documentation) as time goes on. So what exactly are we prioritizing?
Wintel conquered the world by maintaining backwards compatibility. These days the majority of 'improving' seems to be for getting around breaking changes introduced by others and making unnecessary UI changes. Reliability and consistency is not a priority anymore. Instead no software can ever truly be finished because the assumptions under which it operates change unpredictably and inconsistently.
I mean really, once you finish something like a file renaming utility, what else is there to do? If it stops working due to changes made by someone else, then it needs to be updated, but that isn't improvement. If on the other hand it's working as intended, then the only way to further improve it is by changing priorities. Engineering is all about tradeoffs, but priorities are now being driven almost entirely by cultural forces, and I've seen this render working software inoperable for no other reason than it didn't fit the fashion of the time.
Reality doesn't change to the point that a chair, or even a microprocessor, stops working. Software on the other hand does, and if the platform you're targeting isn't stable, then you can never finish a project, let alone improve it. And this 'no updates' = 'dying project' philosophy is a big part of the problem, because it forces developers to unnecessarily update a project just so people believe it's relevant, while the only metric we should be using is that the software is fit for the purpose we use it for.
I started frequenting HN because I kept encountering these kinds of problems everywhere else. Certain subjects just have more gravity as it were, and when present will inevitably take up all the oxygen in a room. The only way I know to manage it is to isolate it in sub-fora, and be very strict about containment.
An important difference between HN and other fourms I frequent(ed) however is that instead of taking offense and going on the defensive when 'attacked' by 4chan, they recognize the joke and find it funny. That alone puts HN lightyears ahead of those other organizations.
And regardless of why, it's exactly this kind of self-awareness and identity that enables people to discuss ideas without feeling threatened by them, something which has held back both social and scientific progress in the past.
"An important difference between HN and other fourms I frequent(ed) however is that instead of taking offense and going on the defensive when 'attacked' by 4chan, they recognize the joke and find it funny. That alone puts HN lightyears ahead of those other organizations."
This. This comment could just as easily have been on that 4chan thread as a great example of HN think to be laughed at.
Well, if the mysterious sdfghjkl34567 is to be believed, then you don't get to decide what neoreactionary means, and so don't get to decide if you are one or not as far as others are concerned.
On the other hand you did start a petition to turn over government rule to Google, and believe the bottom 1/3 of the population should be live in servants to the top 1/3. What this has to do with neoreactionarism I have no idea, but apparently many people think it's associated.
P.S. I'm still not convinced that you're not a troll, but then again I'm not sure if this is not exactly the kind of $#@% that needs to be stirred up.
Perhaps they sold it, but I can also see how adding special exceptions to their algorithm and policy would be more expensive and error prone than just paying Mr. Lush for new marketing materials. We just don't know.
What I do know is what I get from a Google search for 'lush':
1) www.lushusa.com
2) www.lush.com
3) www.youtube.com/user/lush (this is Mr. Lush's channel)
www.youtube.com/lush was not on either the 1st or 2nd page of web results, or even the 1st page of video results. Google seems to be indexing based on the 'user' addresses.
And if the URL change is due to an algorithm, then Lush Cosmetics can't do anything about it either, which hurts their brand too as many people now believe they deliberately stole an address from someone else and refuse to give it back.
This is why it's important to have your own domain name, if for no other reason than to redirect traffic to your youtube channel.
But you didn't insult me because that wasn't a statement regarding my character, you clearly established you don't want a conversation, and you caused me no harm whatsoever, direct or otherwise.
#SticksAndStones
That's the problem with restrictions on 'insulting and objectionable' speech. Beyond the fact you just demonstrated how easy it is to get wrong by misapplying the very rules you brought up in this discussion, it also opens the door to claiming any statement regarding someone's character (such as 'incompetent', 'unemployed', 'hypocrite', 'terrorist', etc) is an insult, regardless of how true it is.
Speech becomes harmful when it isolates and marginalizes. It does not become harmful just because it's offensive or enraging. So in the context of this story calling everyone a 'cuck' wasn't harmful, but the otherwise innocuous phrase 'build the wall' was, and coming up with a set of rules which fairly and consistently cover cases like that is likely impossible.