Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | jordan0day's comments login

I'm kind of uncomfortable with this line of reasoning, and definitely uncomfortable with this statement:

> '"True freedom of speech" is an awful thing.'

That is, a good use of freedom of speech is to "speak truth to power". Yes, it's awful when freedom of speech is used to kick someone when they're down, but we need to preserve that freedom so that we can kick someone when they're (wrongly) up.

That's tyrannical.

Freedom of speech must have limits. Those limits protect the vulnerable.

The entire point of "freedom of speech" is to protect the rights of the person you hate when they say things you find the most dangerous or offensive. You don't need to create a "right" to allow nice people to say nice things to other nice people.

Sure, there are type of speech that I find very damaging to society, but they still have to have the right to speak their mind, or we open a Pandora's Box of troubles when we try to decide which types of speech are "bad".

This really is the real test of any society that describes itself as "free". Do they allow their enemies and troublemakers their equal right to speak? Or is Freedom Of Speech de facto only enjoyed by the classes that already have the power to speak, while others are prevented form having a voice? In the later case, "freedom" little more than marketing.

Also, remember that allowing someone the freedom to speak does not require us to give them a stage or an audience.

Those who are "vulnerable" may choose to either stop participating in speech that offends them or learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

Attempting to restrict speech is not the answer, has never been an acceptable answer, and will never be an acceptable answer.

> learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered.

The old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a lie. Words can severely hurt people, and even if they don't break their bones directly, they probably will incite people to actually break their bones.

> It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered. I can't recall the last time I heard about words murdering someone. Incited murder/suicide? Perhaps, but at that point you're just shifting blame around to try and make a point.

In the case of suicide, the "victim" would have had any number of chances to disconnect from the source of the speech that was hurting them.

> they probably will incite people to actually break their bones In the case of murder/assault, well, last time I checked that's already a punishable crime.

Your argument does not further a case for the repression of free speech.

Those limits are - by definition - set by the powerful and at their most effective on the powerless, because the ability to control what kinds of speech are allowed in a way that affects large numbers of people is in itself a huge form of power. If anyone claims otherwise, you should take a good look at their motivations.

You don't make sense.

And empowerment > infantilization

Why doesn't what I'm saying make sense?

Absolute freedom of speech is tyrannical. It gives the privileged enormous power to do harm.

Freedom of speech must be limited so it is a power against the powerful, not the powerless.

Protecting people from hate speech and incited violence is not "infantilisation". It's basic human rights.

Are you not familiar with the Intolerance Paradox?

All true. But FoS is also a normal behavior used by people everwhere, to make themselves clear. The guy standing on a stump in the park, complaining about his sister-in-law has the same right, for the same reason. Its not just a political-action-tool. Its supposed to be a human right, like life and liberty.

Yes. A human right that, like others, has limits where it conflicts with other human rights.

Let's be a little more honest here. You say this, but like everybody else that makes this statement, it only applies to things that align with your narrow view of the world.

It's a common tactic to root out and silence opposing view points used in dictatorships and non-free nations. As long as someone isn't making death threats or something similar, speech should be free.

But I think people like you need to have their livelihood and speech taken away for good for something they said on the Internet to fully understand why speech needs to be free and protected for all, not just the chosen few.

If I donated some money to a pro-gay marriage proposal, I shouldn't get fired from my job (or bullied online)..so why did the ex-mozilla CEO get bullied and then fired for donating to what he believed in? Because it's against the narrative? This isn't how freedom is supposed to work...

How about gangsta rap groups of the late 80s? Local law-enforcement and many other people used the exact same words that you use today: The freedom of speech has limits. Should they have been prevented from going on stage?

How about occupy Wall street? Why should specific types of speech be allowed in the name of freedom and others deemed conflicting with 'human rights'????

I suspect you and many other people posting here will attempt to come up with reasons why the examples I listed should be accepted but other forms of free speech (which happen to be against your personal views) are wrong and need to be silenced.

This bullshit only creates a divide between us and if our society weren't so lazy, it would lead to another war.

Its different to be fired by somebody for what you said, and for the boss to be fired for what he said. You have to see that difference.

Only tyrannical totalitarians despise Freedom of speech. So that they can rule with impunity. The concept of hate speech cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Either it's all acceptable or it means nothing. That's it.

Acting like people cannot control themselves or react reasonably to unsavory opinion is infantilization. The incitement argument doesn't apply to free speech because it isn't just speech. It's speech plus action & it's the action that hurts. The only human rights that exist are the ones you give yourself.

I'm pretty sure the point of the article was about women and Amazon, not "about a (painful and harsh) health insurance screw-up".

The health insurance "screw up" only occurred because she was on maternity leave. As a man, this isn't necessarily my area of expertise, but I'm pretty sure only women can go on maternity leave.

That's not to say this couldn't also happen to a new father on paternity leave... but paternity leave barely exists in the US to begin with.

Is there supposed to be a cause-and-effect here? Because I'm not seeing how that's related?

Obligatory link to Jim Gray's "Why Do Computers Stop and What Can Be Done About It?": http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-85.7.pdf

TL;DR: Most software bugs that make it past testing are transient "heisenbugs". That is, they're the kind of bug that goes away when if you restart the program.

Related: This is actually a core tenet of the Erlang ecosystem -- spend any length of time around Erlangers and you're bound to hear the phrase "let it crash". Erlang actually has support for this built into the system: Supervisor processes exist to automatically "power cycle" your code if an unhandled error occurs.

It is not necessary that there is a bug firsthand. Think at a system with memory pressure due to memory fragmentation. This could lead to failed memory requests for applications that would succeed on a less long running system. (For this reason some systems even disallow dynamic memory allocations during runtime)

What's extremely funny to me is that this article is at least half about how much we underestimate (or flat out don't know much about) the people of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

And the sole comment thread here is full of people saying "No way were people in North Dakota capable of eating sushi in 1905".


Actually, they're saying it's likely they were eating fresh water fish, which I think is a very astute observation that the article doesn't go into. Japan itself did not bother eating salmon for fear of parasites until much later.

To be honest, the article highlights some interesting history, but seems a bit editorialized for my tastes. As I commented there:

Very interesting article, but there seems to be an odd amount of time spent in adulation of Japan that I think could give an impression of less history and more "rose tinted glasses." It wasn't that long before the focused time period that Westerners were not treated so kindly in Japan.

"And that, in microcosm, was the general attitude of 19th century Americans to both the Chinese and the Japanese; one despised, the other admired. Over and over in newspapers and magazines of the era, the Japanese are praised as a clean, well-bred, delightful race, the “most civilizable” in Asia. The Chinese? Not so much."

This seems to be laying it a bit thick on the generalizations. The Japanese weren't exactly welcomed with open arms by everybody (and I'd love to see some citations about the implied universal hatred of the Chinese [and some more background information on why that is so wouldn't hurt if we're going to be throwing that in there anyway, but that too could fill its own article]). Indeed, the Japanese, too, were excluded once the "yellow" fear descended upon them just like the other East Asians.

Speaking of gyoza (which btw I think you've misspelled), there's a bit of "delicious" irony there when considering that it very likely has Chinese origins (even when just purely considering an etymological analysis), and yet, as your article points out, from a 19th century Westerner's view, it's good riddance to the Chinese folks, in with the Japanese folks!


A couple weeks? I don't know much about the state of the railroads in 1905, but the Pony Express could get a letter halfway across the continent, on horseback, in 10 days. Fifty-five years beforehand.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that a person in North Dakota could get fish delivered from the coasts, on ice, in a couple of days. Now, did they? I honestly have no idea.

Heck, half of the point of the article seemed to be that we seriously underestimate the people (Americans, in this case), of the 19th and early 20th centuries.


I've been noticing a trend recently whereby all the standard BCPL advocacy articles, tutorials and feature overviews are taken, have 's/BCPL/[some newer language]' run on top of them and reposted as if they're all novelties of [some newer language].

Seriously, though, I don't get this critique? It's not like binary pattern matching was novel in Erlang, either. Personally, I'm just happy to see an article on binary pattern matching (in any language!) on hn.


You mean ALGOL, not BCPL.

It's just that the complete lack of mention of Erlang, the jab at OOP languages (which is ironic given the actor model is relatively OO) and presenting the reuse of an Erlang construct as an Elixir novelty reeks of magpie hype. It's like the old joke about Ruby being renamed Rails, I have a feeling Erlang is being renamed to Elixir.


I don't think you'll find this the case in the Erlang community. Joe Armstrong has some pretty positive things to say about it:



You're not wrong, but it just seems like bad design. Why do they still show shipping rates at all, if the separate price/shipping prices are meant to deal with the uncertainty of shipping fees?

I'm not sure if they're altering the page based on geo-ip or not, but what I'm seeing on their page is "$14/mo (plus low 5.99 shipping) and $150/yr (plus 69.99 shipping)."

Why not just say $20/mo or $220/yr (additional shipping fees may be required for non North American customers)? It seems like that would be less likely to cause the sort of complaint had by gergles.


> Why not just say $20/mo or $220/yr

Geolocation is not a reliable way to detect a shipping address (you could be using a VPN for instance). If you don't separate the shipping cost then it would be harder to tell the client why the final price is different to the initial quote.


> We can't get it without shipping. Don't quote prices that are impossible to achieve.

This, exactly.

When I first glanced and thought "Oh, $150 a year? That's not too bad." Then I looked closer and saw the shipping cost was extra.

It's not that the extra shipping cost was necessarily prohibitive, it's just that there's some sort of psychological effect (sticker shock, I guess?) where you think you know what the price of something is, and are disappointed to learn that's not really the price at all.


"... it's just that there's some sort of psychological effect ..." For me it feels like a bait-n-switch.


> Why would a developer work in such a place? I imagine you would be forced to be all professional yet always play second fiddle to the traders, no matter great your skills were.

This is generally the case at most places where software development is done, even when the software is the product.

For example, as any developer working at an "enterprise software" shop -- despite being the "producers", you're still beholden to (and less important than) the sales folks.

Not saying that's right or wrong, just that that is how it is.


But also in general, in places like that there is also a huge priority placed on having absolutely the best infrastructure & systems reasonably affordable in order to empower the traders. For example, of Fidelity's ~45,000 employees, about 14,000 work in technology roles (both internal IT and product stuff). To me that's an insane ratio for a non-tech company ...

... but, if you talk to any big-finance leaders these days, they'll probably admit to you that their tech is their competitive advantage (and not just in HFT, either).



Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact