We get DMCA claims all the time — most often from our customers' own counsel. Even so, the explicit, as automated as can be policy is to pull the content, and let the lawyers sort it out amongst themselves.
Submitter, or a moderator, please edit the title to re-add the word "How". That's done automatically, but sometimes it's wrong. It's especially so here.
It's a very common style of headlines recently, and a lot of the time you can remove the "How" without changing the meaning. For example, if I look down The Verge's recent posts, the first one starting with "How" is "How sampling and streaming are changing the future of music" [1]. Titling that "Sampling and streaming are changing the future of music" works fine.
I don't know that it's particularly useful most of the time, it's usually just unnecessary. An example where it actually should have been removed that I remember was this article on The Guardian a while back: "Suburb in the sky: how Jakartans built an entire village on top of a mall" [2]. There's nothing in the article at all about how they built it. It's just a trendy headline style for some reason, and gets used even in cases where it doesn't apply, like that one.
Edit: whoops, I thought you were replying to the request to add 2017 to the title.
If you've possibly already read it and are wondering if it's a repeat, if you have knowledge that the topic has had changes since then which might make it less accurate, and any number of other things.
In the end, it's more information, if people want to assume something negative about it, I feel that's on them (as long as the information shown is accurate).
I feel you’re talking about the date in brackets, which most people agree is useful. However the GP is discussing a different behaviour on HN where the word “How” is automatically dropped from headlines when it is used as a prefix. This behaviour doesn’t provide more information, as you state, though your opinion of its desirability might still differ from the GPs.
Yeah, I noticed that myself a bit ago, and edited my comment. You're correct in that I was talking about the date. Thread comprehension fail on my part. :)
I find the volume of the noise being made over whether or not the "entirely willing" bit was quoted out of context by the media for sensationalist purposes — which it 100% was — quite curious. To me, the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.
Because that's what it's about: he said, "But is it really?" — literally, in fact — about something which, for legal purposes, his opinion is irrelevant. To wit:
> Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.
Stallman said that. He went there. He quibbled over whether something constituted rape, as if the Virgin Islands cares one whit what rms thinks of their laws. That's where he screwed up, and people in the thread said so at the time, too. So people now can try to make this shit-show about his being quoted out of context about "entirely willing" — which, again, it was — as much as they want, but that just won't make it so.
This is entirely about Stallman having quibbled over rape, not whether he was selectively quoted in the course of quibbling over rape.
Hell yes he did. Wouldn't you? If I made my own country where "rape" was defined as "sex without first doing twenty jumping jacks," wouldn't you "quibble"?
>everyone admits knowingly slept with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that constituted rape.
So what? I drove 37 in a 35 today, who cares? You can't outsource your morality to the legal system like that.
If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through the VI's laws.
> If Minsky did something bad, say he did something bad. But don't launder your outrage through some country's laws.
It's hard for anyone to do that because virtually everything on this is speculation. The whole thing about Minsky stems from a single sentence in a recently unsealed enormous deposition ( https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/1159946492871938048 ) where one of Epstein's victims included Minsky in a list of people that epstein's assistant directed her to have sex with. She wasn't asked if sex actually happened with Minsky, and didn't claim it did, she was asked about the dates and couldn't recall.
A witness who claims to be present reported Minsky turning her down and complaining about the advance, additionally on the date that conference was held-- in 2002, Epstein's victim was 18. ( https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ )
But since there are essentially no facts, not even concrete allegations-- people seem to feel free to make up their own version of events which are exactly as awful or harmless as they want them to be.
.... God save you if your imagination comes out different from the angry mob's and you dare share it with others.
Because Minksky has been dead for a few years there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually setting the facts straight, but there seems to be a lot of interest in using it as an excuse to be abusive to fellow humans.
It's not that simple. There are plenty of places where the sets "things that are legal" and "things that are moral" don't intersect. Those are some of the most interesting, challenging questions we will face.
EDIT: And I would submit the offered example illustrates that. Doing two miles per hour over the posted speed limit may not be legal, but it's hardly immoral. Similarly, lying to someone to sway their opinions in an argument isn't illegal, but I don't think that's particularly moral, is it?
I don‘t think it was ‚a man‘ but a close fellow scientist who is dead and can‘t stand up for himself. Which is one reason RMS did not stay away from this fire and one making him speak his own mind - ignoring the other hats he was wearing (but using a lecturing voice). On the one hand it makes it harder to condemn. On the other it is a failure that can‘t be tolerated by high profile figureheads.
> the place Stallman screwed up was in trying to quibble over terms in defense of a man who we have reason to believe had sex with an woman of an age in a jurisdiction where that might have constituted rape.
This is where you jump to conclusions and become a part of this charade. All we have are unsubstantiated allegations that do not even say definitively that sex took place. And just based on that, your and the mob's conclusion is "we have reason to believe" ?
I agree with Stallman and everyone else who is extremely skeptical and advises caution. Alas, the mob is out for blood.
You know what, dude? I really, really hope it is just an allegation. I want desperately for it not to be the case that Minsky got sucked into Epstein's shitty web. But the deposition we've seen so far is just that: the only one we've seen so far.
That said, and this is key, none of this is about whether or not Minsky did anything. Assuming he did, it isn't even about whether it was with a minor, or a woman of legal age. It's about Stallman having decided that was a prudent moment and subject about which to "Well actually..." at the world. The whole point is Stallman's behavior, not Minsky's.
In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.
> In all seriousness: what the actual fuck does Richard Stallman's opinion on what does or doesn't constitute rape matter? Why would he think that was a point that needed his quibbling? Maybe that's the judgement under question.
I mean he didn't just jump in with it out of nowhere. Discussion had already been started, and someone brought up both her age and the location, and declared it as therefore rape (__rape__, with emphasis). This communication was directed at RMS himself, as a rebuttal (bordering on dismissal) to his stance; RMS responded to it, each point in turn.
Stallman is probably a little bit further along the spectrum than you then.
This is a man who commiserated someone for having a baby because it would distract them
from emacs development. He has been playing social minesweeper for decades and finally lost.
Please remember that Purdue were the ones who marketed Oxycontin on the premise of one dose for 12-hour pain relief.
When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses.
Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestly about it for two and a half seconds realizes that no matter what the recommendation is, enough people who are in bad enough pain to be prescribed oxy will take it when they need it, recommendation be damned, that to have issued that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith.
They marketed the drug on a lie in order to get doctors to prescribe it, which fueled — if not created — an epidemic, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Their hands are not clean, here.
We should be. We should also be going after the distributors who were shipping millions of pills a year to small towns with a population of 6000. This is not an either/or situation, there is plenty of blame to go around.
> that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith.
This seems a bit of a stretch to me.
The doctors prescribed it, even given readily available research, the FDA approved it, knowing full well this was a risk. Those are the guilty parties here. Purdue filled their role just fine, they just happened to be making an opiate and so they're getting chased for it now because China is dumping fentanyl. Pretty ridiculous really.
I do not agree with him, but I think you're making a much more salient point indirectly.
Public policy that can be readily manipulated by bad actors (as the drug industry is certainly full of) should not be used as the final say for anything. Systems need to be able to tolerate: corruption, false information, and true but misleading information. Our regulatory systems in general seem to struggle with any of the above. If "health authorities" (to avoid naming any particular organization) can only effectively screen out good actors inadvertently engaged in bad behavior, then they're effectively useless - because bad actors do exist, and they're vastly more dangerous than the former.
It's not just the WHO. The same arguments apply equally to e.g. the FDA who played a similar role in this by rubber stamping the drugs. And similarly it also doesn't just end at the FDA as there are numerous smaller level regulatory agencies and operators involved on the medical side. Even non-regulatory agencies, such as the American Medical Association also showed themselves to be somewhat useless by decisions such as choosing to play into lobbying for consideration of pain as a vital sign.
The same is even true of things such as the FAA and the aviation industry where there were analogous issues. All of this is emphasizing that these organizations, which can be quite the burden on 'good players', are ultimately ineffective at restraining bad players which (I suppose depending on your philosophical view) should be their primary purview.
The FDA does quite a bit to keep both good and bad actors in check. They are not perfect, but for example they regularly track down outbreaks of food born illnesses in ways the producers simply can’t. https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety...
Making wide sweeping statements based on very specific issues simply demonstrates ignorance of how these organizations actually interact with the systems they regulate.
PS: As to FDA ‘rubber stamping’ the drug, using opioids for treatment of end of life cancer pain is perfectly reasonable. OxyContin is just one of a huge list of similar drugs that have been in use long before this outbreak. It’s not the chemical that’s the problem is the other actions by the company.
Oxycontin wasn't just rubber stamped for end of life cancer treatment. You're referring to when the FDA decided to further expand Purdue's drug rights enabling it to be used on 11-16 year olds. Purdue, when seeking this approval, were already facing criminal charges for their marketing of oxycontin. And the FDA's decision in expanding treatment to kids was primarily driven by them asking Purdue to carry out studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of oxycontin on kids, because they seem like trustworthy guys. Lo, and behold, Purdue's carried out some "studies" and told the FDA it's just awesome. And the FDA said, "Oh okay, cool." [1]
And this story repeats over and over since our entire regulatory system is, when it comes to the big and influential players from Purdue to Boeing, mostly just glorified self regulation. And that leads to a worst of both worlds scenario. We get the lack of oversight inherent in self regulation, yet it's paired with an undue faith in our regulatory systems as many people don't understand the actual regulatory processes, or lack thereof.
To be clear doctors could and had already been prescribing OxyContin and other opioids to 11 year olds. The studies where about guidelines for use not ability to prescribe. In this very specific case, the system was working correctly.
Opioids are addictive and become less effective over time. Opioids can also be a valuable tool for relief of severe pain over a short to moderate period. The actual issue is not the drug in this case it’s a drug company pushing for more scales.
PS: I have seen a friend become addicted while in cancer treatment. But, I have also been prescribed opioids after major surgery. So yes they are clearly extremely dangerous, but they can treat levels of pain that are difficult to describe.
I have personally spoken with three women who have stated that they will not attend conferences where rms is also attending, or speaking, specifically because he won't leave them alone (by which I mean "keeps coming onto them"), and won't listen to them when they ask him to leave them alone, which they have done repeatedly, and unambiguously.
Is that a direct enough statement of facts for you, or would you like their phone numbers or emails or whatever, so you can fact-check for yourself?
I'm very glad to see Stallman can learn to appreciate the nuance of these questions and acknowledge that he had previously thought incorrectly, but the subject of this thread, and the subject of The Fine Article remain cases where he just shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place.
I am eternally grateful to rms for the contributions he's made, and many of the often unpopular, but amazingly principled stances he holds. For some of the things I think he's right about, I think he's one of the only voices out there saying that thing.
But for fuck's sake, Richard, the notion of staying in your lane sometimes has merit. Like with your awful jab about Jobs' death, keep that shit to yourself. Sometimes, remaining silent is the right move. Sometimes, attempting to defend your position just weakens it further. Sometimes, it turns out, "technically correct" is actually the worst kind of correct.
And sometimes shutting up means the unreasonable and emotional win.
This is how we end up in this mess of stupid press and politics, by killing the middle the sides get radicalized and deafened to dialogue. Shouting is not dialogue.
Someone has to try to reset this, if it takes 1000 martyrs then so be it.
I think the very fact that so many of us look at talking with people as something that can be "won" is the preponderance of the problem. It doesn't have to be a competition.
Speaking as someone who has learned this the hard way, over and over and over again, please hear me when I say: "Correct" does not always entail "right", even leaving aside whether being right is even necessarily laudable. Getting all, "Well technically..." in the places where those things disagree is a battle — since it's something to be "won", remember — you'll want to consider carefully whether it's worth fighting, every time.
At some point, I decided that it might be better for all of our well-being, not to have all the "incorrect" people in my life always annoyed with me. Based on the quality of the relationships I now have with them, I think it was worth it. Even better: now, when I do actually make the effort to make these kinds of distinctions, I tend significantly more often to be listened to.
> At some point, I decided that it might be better for all of our well-being, not to have all the "incorrect" people in my life always annoyed with me.
The only problem with that is it's the same excuse a lot of Germans used to justify not speaking up against the Nazis.
While it may make your life better, it's very much a local maximum.
Did I really need to explicitly, preemptively disclaim that the approach I was describing is more appropriate to daily life type interpersonal stuff, than it is to fucking Nazis?
That's the thing about local maxima - when you're in one, it isn't obvious.
Instead, the burden is on others to notice and speak up.
You may not like the Nazi comparison, but it's apt...
Especially with the things Trump says and does as president, there's a real danger that staying quiet about "daily life type interpersonal stuff" could have disastrous consequences a few years down the line.
After all, just like with the Nazis, you'll never be put in a position where you're asked to ignore much more than you already ignore.
Fine, since people seem to feel the need to read whatever shallow interpretation of my point they want, let me be "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." clear:
I'm talking about not going all aspy-monologue, "well, actually..." at people about ultimately inconsequential things like using their turn signals or not, or misusing a word, or whatever — precisely so they aren't pre-disposed to eye-roll at me, and then tune me out, when I do take the time, because this time it's a subject that matters.
For a recent example, let's suppose I might have taken the effort to expound upon what "words actually mean" in a discussion of the definitions, laws, and treaties relevant to the notion of "asylum", who is or isn't eligible, whether or not criminal liability might attach for illegally crossing a border, and so on, because that is a place where the fight is more likely to be worth it.
Simply: pick your battles. More often than you think, they probably aren't worth the cost. If you save your "well actually" points for the places where they are, you'll get significantly better return on spending them.
I am just gobsmacked that I'm arguing in favor of doing something judiciously, so that when you do it, it matters, and I'm being told I'm somehow excusing the very kinds of shit I'm talking about saving your energy for fighting...
When I read your original comment, I commented because the point I wanted to make seemed interesting (to me at least) and worth making.
On re-reading, I understand how it may have come across as less of an "interesting observation" for others reading and more like nitpicking or point scoring. I apologise for that. It wasn't my intention.
The trope that wait times are materially worse in single-payer systems is precisely that: a trope. You do not have to dig hard to find examples of wait-times measured in months to get diagnostic procedures scheduled, and where I live — the San Francisco Bay Area — the wait time for an initial consultation with, e.g., a dermatologist has been about the same, for as long as I've lived here. I know doctors who work in hospitals who've had to wait months for a breast cancer scan.
A thing that sucks in both systems can not legitimately be used to argue against only one of them.
To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink.
So the part where I actually agree with many of the concerns about the man and his administration is ... what? Noise? Doesn't matter, because I didn't use the "right" word?
Real talk: we haven't even begun unpacking the ironies here, dude.
EDIT: No, that's not an invitation. This conversation isn't going anywhere useful to anyone, and I have both a meeting, and deadlines. Have a good day.
You might be having trouble wrapping your head around the thing, because the thing you're trying to wrap your head around is completely different from what I said.
To be clear, then: I did not downvote your experience. (I'm not even sure what that means. Can you explain?) I downvoted the counterfactual conclusion that you've drawn from your experience, and then crowed condemningly at the community.
This is not what I usually see reflected in the comments here and the wider media narrative. If we criticize one country for being a dictatorship and criticize another for giving people a vote and following through on that vote it's certainly worth looking at how we came to those opinions.
If you're referring to Brexit, I don't think it's meaningfully comparable. A significant enough fraction of people were deluded into voting for it or did so on a lark, legitimately believing it was never going to pass, that it just can't be taken as credible.
A vote that is substantially cast on the basis of disinformation or lulz is not a legitimate vote, and despite occasionally overwhelming public outcry to the effect that they want one, the people haven't been given the chance to recast it.
A clown, indicating every intent of not following the vote of the Parliament he leads, into an action which the polity he and that Parliament represent seem, largely enough, not to want that a new referendum is the only not-insane choice, is an existential danger to democracy. There is nothing to reconcile between these not-exemplary-of-anything-but-themselves cases.
The point of the article is that yes, the scenario where pilots can claim all airline profits is ridiculous, because is it sub-optimal for everyone -- pilots, passengers, and certainly investors.
It also never argues that pilots are "delivering value" equal to the airline profits. Only that the pilots are in a position, due to regulation, to claim those profits, because they can shut the airline down (a power that flight attendants, mechanics, reservation agents, etc don't have).
It is very much a joke, and not a joke.