It doesn't sound like you're actually sorry that they were offended in these circumstances, either, so "I'm sorry if you were offended" is still apologising for something you're not really sorry about, and poorly at that. Leaving aside the question of whether you should be sorry since that's too situational to discuss in generalities, if you're going to pretend you might as well pretend well, I'd say.
I don't know how people interpret the word "sorry" here, but for me "I'm sorry" means I feel bad about something and I don't want to do it again. Therefore I can honestly say "I'm sorry you're offended", or "I'm sorry if I offended you", by which I mean "if you were offended by what I said then I feel bad about you experiencing negative emotions; I don't want to say things that make you feel bad; but that doesn't change the fact that your outrage is ridiculous and completely irrational and totally your fault, so calm the fuck down for five seconds and let us resolve it". I am sorry for how they feel. I am not sorry for what I said.
There's a lot going on here and it's hard to properly talk about it all at once so I'm going to try to discuss some pieces and hope I don't lose an aggregate meaning in the process.
I see a few key points in what you said that I want to respond to in particular.
> I am sorry for how they feel. I am not sorry for what I said.
You don't have to be sorry for what you said to be sorry for offending or hurting the person. You can stand by what you said entirely while still being sorry that what you said hurt them. Saying "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" doesn't mean you're retracting your words but it does mean that you are saddened for having caused the other party pain, even if you don't think their pain is rational.
> but that doesn't change the fact that your outrage is [...] totally your fault
If you're concerned about "fault" in this case, I'm not really convinced you do feel bad. "I'm sorry I said something that offended you" isn't "I'm a terrible person who is totally in the wrong"; it's "I regret that I did something that resulted in you being hurt." If you stand entirely by what you said it might even mean something like "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you."
> "I'm sorry" means I feel bad about something and I don't want to do it again
Ultimately, I think this is what it's all about. "I'm sorry you were offended" is (at its absolute best) "I feel bad about you being offended"; "I'm sorry I offended you" is "I feel bad about you being offended and I don't want to do it again."
I think you haven't lost the aggregate meaning, and in fact you've managed to capture my own view on this issue perfectly. Thank you for this point-by-point elaboration.
I usually go out of my way to play cooperative with people. It often means that I try to say, "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you".
Someone's surprising outrage at something I think is innocent also reveals my lack of understanding of that other person. Assuming their honesty, I want to go into this in order to better understand what's going on. Maybe we both actually think the same way about the issue, maybe it's just an unfortunate phrasing on my part that caused the problem? It happened this way many times.
So to circle back to the beginning of the whole thread - I don't think that "I'm sorry (if) I offended you" is always a non-apology. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted (and honestly, I'm not angry at them anymore - I grew to understand it was complicated and messy situation for both of us, as relationships sometimes turn out to be; the point is, it revealed a flaw in trying to atone for offending someone at all costs).
> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted
I actually spent a couple years in a similar-sounding situation (and have similarly moved past the anger) so I unfortunately have a pretty good idea where you're coming from here. It's also a pretty different situation from what I think the discussion has mostly been centered around. I'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique. I think it's a fair bit different from the general case, especially when public apologies are involved.
> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.
I don't think "right" is the way to put it at all. Even if we can say someone is or isn't right to be offended, I don't think it really matters. If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place? That's not rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious but my expectation is that it's the latter. And note that for this I'm trying to differentiate between "feel bad about how they feel" and the sort of "feel bad about having to deal with this situation of them acting offended" I alluded to above.
I'm usually pretty good at empathy and understanding others' viewpoints but maybe some people are different enough from me in a way I'm having difficulty comprehending because I cannot imagine a situation where an action I take causes somebody to feel bad and where I genuinely feel bad about their feelings but I don't regret my role in causing that state. And I'm all too familiar with cases where somebody might have to apologise when they don't mean it but very, very few where they wouldn't benefit from trying to act sincere about it.
> 'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique.
For me the relationship ended basically the day after I refused to apologize again, because at this point the pattern went to ridiculous extreme; apologizing then would require me to explicitly lie to myself about what I believe is true, and I do value truth very much.
> If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place?
I say (or do) something. The other party gets offended. I will feel bad regardless of who is "right". The situation sucks, yes, but I care about feelings and internal emotional state of others much more. Can't help it, empathy turns itself on automatically. I feel compelled to resolve the issue as soon as possible not just because there's someone angry in front of me, but because I genuinely feel bad about causing them to feel bad. That's my weak spot that was used to take advantage of me once.
I worked hard for that experience to not destroy my empathy. Instead, I settled on following defense mechanism: if I start to feel that someone is playing me this way on purpose, I pause the situation and calmly but explicitly note that I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated and do not wish for it to continue. So far it only happened once, and the person involved backed down immediately, and the problem did not occur again with them.
Public apology situations are usually different than private ones, but the manipulative element can be still present. Looking at Twitter outrages in particular, it's more often present than not - probably due to the fact that the most outraged people are the ones who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Here, outrage is far too often used as a tool to control the words and actions of the accused party.
While you can construct the answer to "Does 'da' mean 'yes' if and only if you are True?" from "Does 'da' mean 'yes' if you are True" and "Does 'da' mean 'yes' only if you are True", you cannot construct the answers to "Does 'da' mean 'yes' if you are True" and "Does 'da' mean 'yes' only if you are True" from "Does 'da' mean 'yes' if and only if you are True?" alone.
Note, in particular, that at the end of the three questions in the solution you still have no way of discerning whether 'da' does, in fact, mean 'yes'.
I'm sorry if I was unclear but I did understand that and was responding to that particular notion. I was attempting to demonstrate that the "and" does not imply the question is now two (or more) questions. Perhaps I can be clearer:
My primary point is that there is a difference between asking both the question "A" and the question "B" vs. asking the question "A and B". It is true that I can waste two questions asking both "A" and "B" to obtain the answer to "A and B" so in that sense I can see why one might feel "A and B" is two questions rather than one.
But really, the answer to "A and B" isn't really about the answers to "A" and "B" as much as it is about the relationship between them. If you ask "A and B", an answer of "yes" will tell you they are both true but an answer of "no" will not distinguish between whether A is false or B is false or both.
Alternatively, consider questions "A" and "B" again. A is either true or false. B is also either true or false. You don't know the truth value of either. How many questions does it take to determine the truth value of both questions, assuming A and B are independent and the value of one doesn't influence the value of the other? Well, you could ask "A and B" and if you get "yes" you're done but that rides on you being lucky. In fact, there is no way that you can differentiate all four possibilities with a single yes/no response; you need at least two. This isn't really a proof that "A and B" is a single question, of course, but intuitively if "A and B" were, as you say, "really two different questions" one would expect to be able to construct an "A and B" that does differentiate four different possibilities.
Or, from another angle, per your prior post would you say "are you and the god to your left both not Random?" is actually two different questions? How about (ignoring for the moment that this is an entirely useless question in this puzzle) "are you not Random and the god to your left not Random and the god to your right not Random?" Or "Are none of the three of you Random?" I can see no cause to say "Are none of the three of you Random?" (or, say, "does it rain here every day?") is any more than one question nor any way to differentiate this construct from the version using "and". I also see no reason why asking "are you not Random and is the god to your left not Random?" would be any more or fewer questions than "are you not Random and does 'da' mean 'yes'" or why that would be any different from an "if and only if".
Of course, there is the final, if somewhat less satisfying, point to make: the framing as a "question" is more for convenience and wider understanding but the common intention for puzzles like this (especially with Smullyan credited for the puzzle) is generally for you to choose a predicate and ask a god to evaluate it for you, with the god possibly running the output through a not gate before it gets to you.
You make fair points. Our disagreement seems to only be about the interpretation of the rules.
>In fact, there is no way that you can differentiate all four possibilities with a single yes/no response; you need at least two.
This is why I would say that the question is actually two questions. Two separate truth values must first be produced, then combined with some operator to make a third (and possibly combined again) value, which is the answer given by the god.
If a god must parse your question down into individual propositions and then answer them in some order to resolve a larger statement, it might stop after the first proposition. I believe it's a valid interpretation of the rules anyway.
I had to call to cancel my AT&T account recently. The conversation was pretty short: I just told the rep that I was moving in with a roommate that already had service set up so I didn't need to transfer my own service (only about ~20% a lie).
The frustrating and insulting part was that I spent a really long time on hold before I was connected with the rep and every few minutes while I was on hold an automated message played saying something along the lines of "You can pay your bill, start new service, or basically anything except cancel way faster by going online!" It was bad enough without the constant reminders that I was only sitting there on hold because I wanted the one thing AT&T won't let you do online.
Why are commenters here a bit apologetic about lying to customer service reps? The latter have no right to know anything about your life, you want the service cancelled and that's it, any information you may choose to provide is purely so they can service you better.
Tell them you're moving to Andromeda to set up an ice cream shop for all I care, I won't hold it against you.
> There's no chance I'm going to vouch for something other people have flagged: I'd never have enough certainty that I'm more right than they are, not enough to risk your retribution. I value my ability to participate in this community too much to help moderate it under threat of punishment for doing so poorly.
This is confusing to me. Unless there's something nobody told me (always possible!) the only "punishment" they'd institute would be removing your vouching privileges. Not making use of the vouch feature out of fear you won't be able to use that feature seems entirely paradoxical. It's similarly paradoxical to say "I value my ability to participate too much to actually participate" unless I've simply missed some part where they say "we'll take away your submitting/commenting ability."
Welcome to human psychology! Yes, people are far more affected by losing something than gaining it or even using it. If you give someone $50 and then take it away, they will generally be very angry even though it's not like they really lost anything. I read a study on it once, but I can't find it now.
When I was a young'un we had a bunch of games on the family computer--which was actually a DOS box--and I played the crap out of most of those games. Except there was one--I think it was Super Huey--that I couldn't figure out for years. Whenever you started it up it asked some obscure questions about helicopters and I had no clue what the answers were. Whenever I saw my dad playing I just assumed he knew everything there was to know about aviation. It took me years before I realised you were supposed to look them up in the manual.
The weird part is that I knew about looking up the potion letters for Prince of Persia but didn't connect the dots for way too long.
Obligatory disclosure: I currently work at Google but I don't do anything even remotely related to TLDs or the discussion at hand. These comments are my own and don't necessarily reflect the company's views, etc.
I'm going to apply Hanlon's razor here and assume misunderstandings but a lot of this post/rant is exceptionally misleading or even outright incorrect. A full point-by-point response would be more time-consuming than I'd like and more space-consuming than is really appropriate as a comment here. Instead, I've got already-too-long responses to a few of the points and I leave it to the reader to investigate further before cementing any opinions one way or the other.
Nor will I bother you with the other 100 applications for the other 100 TLDs, which are probably similar but I haven’t read all of them because it’s a Friday night and I have plans, so don’t shoot me if it turns out some of them are more evil than others.
At least he admits he hasn't read most of them but it's disingenuous to take a sample of 1 from 101 as representative and even more disingenuous to insinuate that any of the applications deviating from this sample are likely to fall into the "more evil" category.
Actually clicking through even some of the applications listed to "Charleston Road Registry Inc." we see a number of applications--including the ones for .zip , .day , and .inc  among others--proposing SLD registration be publicly available rather than strictly internally. And some of this--like .zip and .day--are proposed to be completely open while others--like .inc--are proposed to be restricted to relevant entities. Other applications--perhaps most notably, .youtube --propose that the public not be able to directly register names but may be able to make use of vanity domains to link to content hosted in that TLD. These applications are also not all active. At least 29--including the mocked .blog--have already been withdrawn.
It’s sort of like how North Korea promotes choice because what if some people want to choose a totalitarian regime.
This is how the rant responds to the quote "Today, most Internet users have only one practical choice when it comes to how their TLDs are managed: a completely unrestricted model environment in which any registrant can register any name for any purpose and use it as they see fit."
It's unfortunate that this quote was taken out of context, however. Reading even just a few sentences further we see the actual meaning of the quote: restricted TLDs such as .edu, .mil, and .gov have proven useful alongside (rather than instead of) the unrestricted TLDs and users (both in the sense of those registering domains and those visiting sites and using services) may benefit from the option of relevant restricted TLDs. For example, the .inc application proposal includes a plan to require registrars to ensure that only corporations are eligible to register .inc domains in much the same way that .edu is only available for accredited US institutions. How much benefit there may be for such restrictions is certainly up for debate it certainly seems a far cry from the "North Korea" comment.
That Google should be allowed to close TLDs because nobody will notice anyway:
This is the rant's ridiculous response to the quote "Because of the strong user bias toward domains within .com, today a generic .com domain name (e.g., jewelry.com or book.com) is likely to produce more traffic and to be more valuable for a business than a generic TLD." out of context, this quote could mean almost anything but in-context it's not about open or closed nor about whether anybody will notice. Rather, it is specifically in regards to the notion owning the .foo TLD would be a significant competitive advantage over owning the foo.com domain or whatever.
"Closed generic TLD". Who even knows what those words mean anyway?
This is perhaps my favourite part of the rant. It mocks the letter for trying to discuss the meaning--or lack thereof--of the term "closed generic" and seems to suggest grabbing a dictionary. Even setting aside that the dictionary doesn't give us appropriately rigorous definitions of these things, the author seems to be missing the fact that this letter didn't spring out of nowhere. In fact, the letter is a comment on an ICANN request for comments on the topic  in which ICANN specifically requested comments "in regard to proposed objective criteria for classifying certain applications as 'closed generic' TLDs". If it were anywhere near as simple as grabbing a dictionary ICANN would have done that in the first place and commentary on the difficulty of rigorously and objectively defining the terms was perfectly in line with the requested discussion.
As I said before, these are only a few of the problems with the rant and there are a number of others throughout. You're obviously free to reach your own conclusions but I really hope that you're informed by pretty much any source other than this rant before you do.
What what a load of drivel... You're killing the messenger here. None of what you said here justifies what Google is doing for instance with .dev. How can you compare a restricted .gov TLD to the exclusive use of TLDs by Google?
If you read more closely you'll see that I did not say anything attempting to justify the proposal for .dev or indeed any other TLD. Nor did I compare the .gov restrictions to a completely-closed TLD.
My purpose was not to argue for a conclusion. I haven't even fully decided where I stand on a lot of the relevant topics. My purpose was merely to illustrate that this rant was full of mistaken and misleading information and doesn't represent a good source to inform oneself.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that the author is completely misinformed, he knows it and he doesn't care. He is just trying to be controversial to gain notoriety, too many people doing it these days. It's enough to see the post's title.
.cat is probably a better example of an established restricted (but not closed to a single entity) gTLD that doesn't make sense as a second level domain of a ccTLD than .edu (restricted), .mil (closed), and .gov (IIRC, closed for current use, but only restricted in the past and includes legacy registrations from that time.)
I wish catalonians the best wrt independence, and if/when they do succeed in that they are very much welcome to have their own ccTLD. Meanwhile they should live under .es hierarchy.
Of course the current hierarchy is lost cause anyways, so I don't really care what happens to it anymore. Only way to make any sense of it would be complete reboot, but I don't hold high hopes that such thing would happen.
You're still missing the point though it seems the reason is that you've mistaken the context of the original "the relevant number is not their net income." To help spell it out:
1. seanp2k2 expressed doubt that a $600,000 fine would dissuade a company with a quarter net income of $192,000,000.
2. dsjoerg points out that in the context of what is dissuasive to a company net income is not particularly relevant. Rather, whether or not punitive action is persuasive depends on whether the gains are considered worth more than the losses from the punishment.
This is the context of the thread: how much of a cost does it take for Marriott to be dissuaded?
So when you say "Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered." you have to remember that this is in context of whether it's enough to convince Marriott to stop causing willful radio interference.
And when people were telling you "that Marriott does not have evil plans", they weren't speaking as to the morals of Marriott's actions. They were saying that Marriott's motives for their actions are the profits those actions generate and not some context-less desire to just be evil or to block wi-fi for the sake of blocking wi-fi.
And nobody said that Marriott "don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interference." The closest is Vivtek's statement that the company wouldn't take well to an officer making it "his or her quixotic personal vendetta". A joint petition for a favourable interpretation is a relatively low-cost, low-commitment action and doesn't speak to the company having any desire to turn it into a vendetta or throw a significant portion of their income at trying to retrieve a small chunk of their income.
Basically, you replied to dsjoerg by saying that net income's relevance is that it represents the ability to fight an issue and the thread since them has been people trying to point out that it wouldn't be in Marriott's best interest to put significant resources in fighting it and so net income remains largely irrelevant. Your replies, meanwhile, seem to come out of left field, apparently discussing moral and legal viewpoints but not the actual topic of whether punitive action is persuasive to Marriott. This is why schrodinger said you were missing the point and the fact that you seem to be having a different discussion from the rest of the thread is the reason PhasmaFelis asked what you think others are disagreeing with. No one is actively disagreeing that blocking wi-fi to sell wi-fi is evil or illegal, nor are they actively agreeing. They're having a different discussion entirely.