I've seen kids eat the stuff.
You've seen neglectful parenting then, which would exist irrespective of what material playgrounds are built from.
Readit NewsAirsinner commented on Evidence mounts on toxic pollution from tires e360.yale.edu/features/ti... · Posted by u/chmaynard
Airsinner commented on YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform nytimes.com/2023/09/19/ar... · Posted by u/mhb
> If people find these allegations credible—and most should
Why should most people find these allegations credible? I do not believe there is a police report, arrest, and let alone a trial. These are currently just allegations, their credibility has not been adjudicated.
One might evaluate the situation based on what I think is called a "preponderance of evidence", combined with an understanding that the legal system is both slow and tends towards innocence unless a crime is proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
A person may know how slow and different a legal decision is compared to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality, and therefore might arrive at a conclusion well before a system designed to be conclusive would.
The law is more about what can be proven than it is about what is true, and for people who know that, legal judgement stands separately from moral evaluation.
Airsinner commented on YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform nytimes.com/2023/09/19/ar... · Posted by u/mhb
> "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a philosophical concept that many legal systems subscribe to in the context of criminal law.
> Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action
Indeed, it’s very similar in the sense that the concept of the freedom of speech goes way beyond the 1st amendment. It existed before it. And it is the first amendment that exists because of the freedom of speech, not the other way round.
> A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.
Yeah, including immoral actions that others may disagree with.
The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution).
Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people, and as long as those certain people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of innocence.
Airsinner commented on YouTube blocks Russell Brand from making money through its platform nytimes.com/2023/09/19/ar... · Posted by u/mhb
No clue whether Brand is innocent or guilty before the law, but if he's exonerated would he have grounds to sue YouTube/Google or do the terms of service allow YouTube to demonetize people based on accusations even if they turn out to be false at a later time?
In addition to the contracts, YT could easily say even the implication he may have done wrong is not good for their business to associate with. He needn't be convicted in a court of law for it to be bad business to continue to work with him.
Airsinner commented on Lichess: Block Ads and Trackers lichess.org/ads... · Posted by u/promiseofbeans
Untargeted ads are still a security nightmare. Why would I permit loading and executing scripts / resources from arbitrary domains? Ublock is layer 0 defense against malware and viruses.
Why would an ad need to run a script, use meaningful resources or even be from arbitrary domains?
Those are all practical arguments, but the point I'm making is that advertising doesn't have to be this way; it's the implementation that's the problem, not the theory.
Airsinner commented on Lichess: Block Ads and Trackers lichess.org/ads... · Posted by u/promiseofbeans
> It's important to note that blocking ads is NOT theft. Don't fall for this creepy idea, which is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy.
This is something I've never actually focused on but it's wild the amount of people I've installed AdBlock and ublock for who think it's something nefarious.
Ads and targeted ads aren’t the same thing, so idk if I agree that ad blocking is per se a privacy right.
Practically, of course, it’s a different story.
I don't think it could have been planned all along, the damage done seems irreversible. No one is going to propose Unity ever again for upcoming projects even if the fees are actually a much better deal than the competitions (like Unreal 5%).
The audacity of asking everyone who have built a game using their engine (completely disregarding the TOS at the time) to be potentially on the hook to receive monthly bills from their own black box that estimate the number of installs ensure that their reputation is effectively ruined, the future is that no one is going to trust them to use their engine because at any point they can come up with new ridiculous fees...
If Unity is the best by a mile it works.
Airsinner commented on Tails is a portable OS that protects against surveillance and censorship tails.net/... · Posted by u/gslin
Wouldn't that be security through obscurity? Which is bad security and a good way to be exploited. I thought that having more eyes on a system made it more secure because people find the exploits.
Also if you’re rolling your own, you’re way more likely to not keep updates perfectly and patch everything that comes up.
Love this, and when folks start to question the value of management, it's because they're not doing these three things.
The whole "servant leader" concept is good, even if it induces a gigantic eyeroll a lot of the time, and justifiably so.
The obvious problem here comes from when great ICs get promoted into these positions and have zero clue about any of this, but the best figure it out.