Basically a mass-protest via network packets. Could we argue sending packets to a server is essentially a form of protest protected by speech similar to a public gathering?
> Some of those guys will almost certainly grow out of it.
We send teenagers to prison for less societal damage. They don't get an opportunity to "grow out of it". I don't know why these teenagers should get more benefit of the doubt.
For the benefit of those outside the US: when I was growing up, and we constantly had police officers talk to us in school as part of the ill-fated DARE "just say no" campaign, the next most common phrase we heard was "tried as an adult".
i.e., if you were 14 or older, you couldn't drink, vote, or even get a learner's permit to drive a motor vehicle, and you were probably flooded with all kinds of hormones making it even more more difficult to regulate yourself, but you'd be put in prison with adults rather than go to juvenile hall if you were ever convicted of a crime, and any felonies would stay on your record permanently, essentially ending any hope you'd have at a normal life.
While I have some sympathy for the youngest members of DOGE, they are actually old enough to be legal adults, and I would point out that their youthful naïveté and the "but they're just kids" response to any attempts at holding them accountable is precisely why they were chosen for their roles.
> We send teenagers to prison for less societal damage. They don't get an opportunity to "grow out of it".
Yeah, but in those cases there are literal laws against what they did, and usually the morality is much more stark (e.g. killing a guy).
Also, the "logic" of being harsh to immature person X so we have to be harsh to every immature person just doesn't fly.
> I don't know why these teenagers should get more benefit of the doubt.
Because this was a more ambiguous situation (e.g. politically polarized) and almost certainly the people who were supposed to know better were telling them they were doing a good job. I'm saying forget the teenagers, and focus on the real bad guys.
If you actually follow those claims, you'll find a report published by a cohort partially composed of Falun Gong members.
The actual report points to about 60-80 possible instances of doctors not putting in the maximum amount of effort to save a life over a period of 20-30 years.
Not exactly systemic like people parrot. Sorta like how people endlessly repeated "social credit score" despite most Chinese acknowledging it barely existed for a majority of the population.
"Since 2005 China's Deputy Health Minister Huang Jiefu acknowledged on several occasions that approximately 65% of organ transplants in China were sourced from executed prisoners.[33][34][35] In 2006 the World Medical Association demanded that China cease harvesting organs from prisoners, who are not deemed able to properly consent.[36]"
...
"Experts have also expressed concern that in addition to executed prisoners, non-death-row political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are also being used to supply the organ transplant industry.[39][40] Researchers, including ones affiliated with The Epoch Times, the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, point out that data from China between 2010 and 2018 may have been falsified or manipulated because of "contradictory, implausible, or anomalous data artefacts" and because they match a quadratic equation with model parsimony that is one to two orders of magnitude smoother than those of other nations."
Just started work on a project. Greenfield and "AI accelerated". PRs diffs are in the range of 10s of thousands of lines. In the PR, it is suggested to not actually read all the code as it would take too long.
If you push a change, or you approve, you're responsible for the change and its effects later. Regardless of size. If change is too big, tell your teammates its too big to review and to refactor to bite-size with their great coding agents. Use AI models also for review of large changes, consider a checklist . Setup CI and integration tests (also can be AI assisted)
Not to downplay, but is it wrong to assume you're self sufficient in daily life? Work a job and pay your bills?
You list your site and have a seemingly lots of professional experience.
Some of these conditions do make life harder, but there's a big difference between high functioning Autism and disabilities that make someone 100% dependent on others.
It's so odd to me that we haven't come up with a term for high functioning autism to separate from low functioning. It's ridiculous to me that a commenter with this background can superficially claim to be suffering from the same disability as a family member I have who has required a caretaker to not die and would probably be totally uninterested or unable to even give an opinion on a complex subject like this.
I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial, but this is the equivalent of stolen valor but for mental illness especially when used to justify an argument.
How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference.
> "It's so odd to me that we haven't come up with a term for high functioning autism to separate from low functioning."
If you are interested to learn, autistic people are typically assigned a level of support needs on a scale of 1 to 3. Most people who would once have received a diagnosis of Aspergers now receive the "level 1" designation. Based on your description, your family member is likely "level 3", possibly with comorbidities? I was assigned "level 2".
> "I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial"
It was dropped because a number of labels, now all considered to be ASD, were discovered to be different presentations of the same underlying disorder. The divisions break down under scrutiny and the apparent modal jumps disappear when you control for comorbidities and the ability to mask.
> "How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference."
I'm not the other poster, but I'm a different autistic adult to whom your complaints might apply. To answer this question, the difference is that I call myself an autist because I have been diagnosed as autistic, due to meeting the diagnostic criteria of autism.
> "this is the equivalent of stolen valor"
Please go to the equivalent of hell.
Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
> Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
I think you guys are perhaps talking past each other.
The fact you acknowledge and recognise 'less severe' (a significant understatement when comparing ASD to Downs) suggests that you do understand parent's point.
Parent, I also note, was not seeking or implying an apology was sought from people with less severe genetic conditions. Rather, that the implications on QoL, lifespan, social / familial imposition etc of Downs, is nothing at all like so called high-functioning ASD.
The parent comment was specifically and exclusively talking about autism, not Down's syndrome. I'm addressing their claim that it is "ridiculous" for an autistic person to "claim" to be autistic when other autistic people have worse outcomes.
I'm not interested in litigating the fairly obvious point that Down's syndrome is a much worse prognosis than ASD, and the comment to which I responded says nothing about it either.
Perhaps including milder forms of autism under the term was a useful way to reduce funding for the intensive care and therapy required by those with more severe forms (e.g. the nonverbal), since we can now frame these things as “changing who they are” etc. and not, in fact, necessary.
Many children who primarily have intellectual disabilities will be categorized under the "Autism Spectrum" because funding has been applied for "Autism", and not "vague learning disability". If the doctor checks the Autism box, it opens a huge swath of support networks in certain states.
I don't blame anyone for lumping their kid in. I think it's more of a massive failure for social funding that hyper-categorizes due to means-testing.
Dr. Asperger may or may not have been sorting autistic children into high- and low-functioning groups so that the higher group (with “Asperger’s”) could go on to become good Nazis and the lower group could be euthanized.
Chevron hired a private prosecutor who was friends with the judge who took the case, to prosecute Donziger after he won a case outside of the US against Chevron.
> Nothing that Altman could say justifies violence against him.
Not arguing with you, but the author, I don't understand this line of thinking.
If Altman introduces a technology that effectively halts the upward mobility of a large portion of the population, how does that not justify violence? Saving up for a house but now there's no work. Your dreams and aspirations are second to shareholder value. The police are already there to protect the shareholders, not the average civilian.
What recourse is there? The money in politics limits the effect voting can have. You can't really opt-out of the system. Why does Sam Altman get this nice little shield where none of his actions can have a negative consequence?
Maybe the author believes in the fact that violence is never justified, and thus the things you mentioned can only be used to explain violence, never justify it? Either way, it's a weird way to think indeed.
I was thinking about this, if the deaths were actually at the scale of 10's of thousands, would that not be visible from space?
The US must have several dozen spy satellites pointed at Iran. We get various imagery to show us successful strikes. Where are the images of the mass slaughter in the street?
The number I keep seeing is 30k killed. That's not an easy endeavor over the course of a week without big logistical hurdles. The trucks, the digging equipment, the furnaces to burn the bodies, all should have some visible trace that the US gov could point to as proof.
Like I did see a handful of videos with body bags lining the street, but it couldn't have been more than 1-2 dozen. I've seen videos and satellite images of actual mass graves in gaza, fields full of bodies covered in sheets. Endless videos of toddlers with amputated limbs.
I can't edit any more, but for all those saying "they got banned for saying 'men can't get pregnant'", I can guarantee 9 times out of 10, there was some imagery of a trans person hanging themselves in the comments.
That's how far-right opinions work. A small wedge to normalize the violent message that comes next. A "man getting pregnant" didn't hurt them, but the deluge of death threats from the stochastic response sure hurt a lot more people.
I've spent way too much time on twitter. That site is a cesspit but you cannot reasonably try to say "they're just opinions". It was organized. "influencers" received money to stoke harassment campaigns. Without moderation, aka cutting off the people stoking the harassment flames, it becomes a Nazi bar, just like it is today.
Here is an example of what the bans were trying to prevent, look at the comments of someone's last tweet. They killed themselves. The replies are who complained about censorship: https://x.com/burntfishie/status/1918223771313561872?s=20
Of course not. Those platforms have 1A rights. In some cases, the US govt violated those rights by pressuring them to take down viewpoints, hence what I said about "1A violation on the government's side."
In other cases, the platform did it all on their own. That's perfectly legal but is also rightfully seen by users as political censorship, something the EFF claims to fight even when it's not from the govt.
I did look through this, and it absolutely corroborates people, including sitting politicians, were banned for believing and stating objective facts about human biology. Sorry that facts get in the way of the narrative.
Basically a mass-protest via network packets. Could we argue sending packets to a server is essentially a form of protest protected by speech similar to a public gathering?
reply