Their money is mostly stored in regulated and insured banks and investments. Even if you get their bank password, you can't just move all their money at once to an untraceable account in an irreversible transaction leaving them with absolutely no recourse.
> the ones making nests near urban areas were incorporating a lot of colorful man-made trinkets they scavenged from the big city to woo the ladies (which I think suggests some level of flexibility).
If they avoided man-made objects, that would indicate that they're smart enough to tell the difference. They're just grabbing any object they find that stands out. If anything, that implies less intelligence.
>If they avoided man-made objects, that would indicate that they're smart enough to tell the difference.
Perhaps bower birds don't give a fuck if the object is man-made or not?
Ignoring vs not ignoring man-made objects could indicate a lot of things. Maybe ignoring man-made objects is an indication of instinctual fear, which would imply less adaptability and therefore less intelligence?
> If they avoided man-made objects, that would indicate that they're smart enough to tell the difference... If anything, that implies less intelligence.
Are you assuming there's something "wrong" with using the colorful man-made trinkets?
By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost.
Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned.
Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds.
That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
I don't claim to know the answer, but I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place.
> I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place
HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not?
You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework.
I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."
Asking "who defines hate speech?" is a cop-out. No one ever asks "who defines privacy?" in discussions about that. Hate speech is just as obvious to anyone with a modicum of empathy.
It's plenty easy for people in general (except HN, where no one seems to have any notion of what that could possibly be without a grand arbiter to define it down to the spin of each quark) to recognize hate speech.
Platforms already have frameworks for dealing with bad actors. Hate speech is just like any other abuse of a platform, and should be treated as such.
In short, I have come to realize that I'm never going to convince this highly-privileged audience to genuinely care about actual marginalized people over some imagined, theoretical bogeyman. So this will be my last wasted effort on the subject, here.
You're right, you haven't convinced me. Every opportunity everyone has given you to define hate speech, you asy "I don't need to!! It's obvious what hate speech is!!" That's not an acceptable definition. Apparently it's anything you highly disagree with. From talking with you, I'm convinced you would classify a discussion on freedom of speech as hate speech. That scares me. I get the sense you want complete control of all speech just so hate speech dies. In other words, a casual stroll toward tyranny.
I don't think you're examining the problem (and censorship IS a problem) critically. Forgive me, but you are the one copping out. And actually, people do ask "what is privacy." It is being redefined all the time and there are people actively fighting for their definition of it. They at least have a definition.
Yes, there is a part of me that seems solipsistic. There is also another part that sees myself as an automaton along with everyone else. And there is yet another who reasons that at some level of sophistication, it's impossible to distinguish between automatons and beings with free will; I no longer care whether I have free will and rejoice in living along with everyone else.
Reminds me of "100 Great Science Fiction Short Short Stories" edited by Asimov. The format works really well for hard sci-fi, gets straight to the point. Some of them have stuck with me for decades.
I've looked up "Microcosmic God" several times because I can't seem to remember the title. But the story was particularly memorable. It wasn't in this Asimov anthology but it was published in the SF Hall of Fame.
A quick search reveals that someone has a copy of the text freely (but perhaps not legitimately) available.
I guess it depends on whether "if" is treated as an expression which returns a value, which I don't think is the case due to the fact that I don't think there is an implicit value return in JS (such as in Ruby; the final line in any scope is the value that scope returns; same as in Elixir)
If it was "promise" in the sense of "showing promise", then it's a mass noun and they wouldn't have said "a promise". That's like saying "a money" or "a knowledge".
That was actually mentioned in Nintendo Power volume 50, it's one of the most well-known and easy-to-perform video game glitches.
They also mentioned the Zelda 2 glitch where you could wrong-warp by jumping off the top of the screen and using the Fairy spell. You could get into a weird town that didn't exist, and if you left you were stuck in the middle of the ocean.
Oh good grief, that happened to me by accident once and I had no idea what was going on. I think I had to restart the game! Thank you for clearing up this mystery for eight-year-old me.
It's mostly in German, but each game page usually has a rules section in English and links to other sites with the same puzzle type.