This entire article is flawed in my opinion.
Bees are not "suicidal". They are not meant to die after they sting.
It's just that they have not adapted to stinging mammals with elastic skin (and probably will not).
Bees can absolutely live after stinging if they manage to dislodge the stinger from the skin.
Yes big dam do redistribute mass and alter the Earth's rotation. But by my rough calculations the Three Gorges Dam should lengthen the day by roughly 0.05 to 0.06 microseconds. So around 1 second every 50,000 years. You are more likely to get late to work because your alarm run out of battery :-)
These dams have drawbacks, but the planets speed is so far down the list. The rivers ecosystem and the watershed would be much more impacted. Not that they can’t take those into account and try to minimize, but it is an inevitable side effect
Haha, I never played in "hard" mode because it was too challenging for me. That's probably why I didn't optimize the performance as much in that mode.
Thanks for the feedback!
It is.
To be hones I played it now in "hard" and the peformance was absolutley fine.
I know that some browsers has still issues when it comes to pure CSS animations as they are running on the GPU and when the Hardware acceleration is disabled the CPU goes sometimes crazy.
I had the same on an animation GitHub a while ago used on their landing page.
So you endorse governments from the middle-east being in their right to delete anything they see as "illegal" because they are blasphemous for example?
I think that interpretation of GP's stance is pretty uncharitable.
If the thing they want to delete is run by an entity that has a physical presence in that country, then they -- unfortunately -- have the right to get that material deleted.
For better or worse, we are all bound by the laws of the place where we physically reside. If we want to do or allow things online that are legal where we are, but are illegal in other countries, then we shouldn't visit those countries.
It doesn't matter if anyone "endorses" repressive governments in doing their repressive things; they are legally able to do those things to people physically present within their borders. That's just the reality of the situation.
France claims Durov allowed stuff that's illegal in France. He went to France, so France has the ability to punish Durov for his alleged misdeeds. It doesn't matter if we think that's right or wrong; that's just how the world works.
National laws are largely based on the local morals; for instance in Europe breath is more or less indecent to show in public. A woman being topless on the beach, even in France, could be arrested, in theory (in practice it would just be "please put on some cloth, madam").
The laws are (usually) defined by the people of a country, based on their idea of morality, and are totally in their right to reject blasphemous stuff or whatever. It's their home, after all.
The only thing non-negotiable, to me, is that the Declaration of the Human Rights is universal and no law, anywhere, should go against them.
> in Europe breast is more or less indecent to show in public.
There is no single "Europe". I have seen many women sunbathing topless in Denmark - it seems to be totally acceptable there. Haven't seen that in France - but it has a very strong nudist culture dating back at least to the 60s. Some of these nudist beaches are actually famous e.g. Cape d'Agde.
And then we didn’t even talk about Spain, and all the German tourists in, say, Mallorca. If anything, this is a stark difference between the EU and the US, in general — the EU is much less afraid of a nipple being shown in public, both in arts and everything.
I once attended a local one man show where the actor's private parts were exposed for a second or two (by accident). There were a lot of kids in the audience (including mine). I was a bit uncomfortable for a second but we laughed it off with the friends.
No, there is no spectrum when it comes to Free Speech. Free Speech is an ideal that promotes total freedom to say whatever you want and is against all (state) censorship.
(And btw, I'm unaware of anything that exists that is a 'spectrum' apart from the electromagnetic spectrum. To have the quality of being a spectrum, the subject must continuously span a 1-dimensional space. It's a way overused metaphor, in my opinion, especially for political positions which are anything but 1-dimensional.)
So you correctly identify that modelling it as a one-dimensional spectrum is a gross over-simplification. Then conclude that as it's not a one-dimensonal spectrum, it must be a binary property? Rather than accepting that reality is more complex than is easily captured in common language?
> Then conclude that as it's not a one-dimensonal spectrum, it must be a binary property?
I can see how you made that interpretation but that's not what I was saying. Free Speech is an ideal (not a binary property). I doubt that that you will find any human society with a system of laws that puts absolutely no restrictions on speech. That still doesn't mean that you can talk about Free Speech as a 'spectrum'. It's an ideal that ppl strive for, to varying degrees and across different domains. (Perhaps similarly to how Truth is an ideal that ppl strive for; Truth is not a 'spectrum'.)
Hate speech is a nebulous term, extremely dependent on the speaker's values.
Plus, people aren't really obliged to love one another or their institutions. Why should I pretend, for example, that I respect some dead Iron Age prophet and people who follow him like sheep?
And yet anti-religious speech is usually perceived as hate speech by the religious folks on the receiving end.
'Hate speech' is a term deliberately coined to undermine the ideal of Free Speech.
There is no need for the label, other than to serve this purpose. We already have long existing words for what is lumped under so-called 'hate speech', such as bigotry, or invective or slander. But they don't contrast so neatly against Free Speech as the invented (subjective) label 'Hate Speech' does, which is why it was (only recently) coined.
My point on spectrum wasn't relating to free speech but rather free speech regulation.
Open discourse is universally recognized as a generally good thing for society.
So, we can try to embrace Free Speech ideals even as we grant our government right to censor some speech and draw (a somewhat arbitrary) line of what's allowed.
We've seen Russia, for example, abuse that power even though free speech is written into their constitution, they use that power to censor political speech and what they refer to as blasphemy, so we know this power can and has been abused but it's also possible, so, perhaps, you are right.
there is no solution to this. If you want to do business in EU (for example, to be available in EU's Apple Appstore), you have to comply, otherwise Apple will be forced to kick you out, and if they don't, they will be harassed by the authorities until they do. If you want to do business in Saudi Arabia or Turkey or any other country you agree or disagree with, it's the same thing. If Turkey says something is "blasphemous" you either comply or withdraw from Turkey entirely. By now every government that cares has figured out how this works, and it really doesn't matter whether you "endorse" this or not, this is how it works.
reply