SaltyLemonZest

It's hard to identify which practices are responsible for which outcomes. Suppose you wanted to combine the high happiness rate of Denmark with the low crime rate of Japan; how would you figure out which are the policies you need to accomplish that?

We got judged on both. Most security teams in my experience feel that even clicking on the link is a big risk, although I've never read a more detailed explanation of why than "oh there might be a 0-day".

The question isn't how you and I can individually avoid being spear phished, but what policies can be implemented across an organization to prevent it. Even the most trusted security teams aren't going to be allowed to summarily fire everyone who fails the test.

I also think this is a much stricter standard than you're recognizing. In my company's last spearphishing test, they sent out a link purporting to be a company survey immediately after an all-hands meeting announcing there'd be a survey (the real survey link came a few hours later). Expecting that nobody will be distracted enough to fall for such a thing seems unrealistic no matter how well you train them.

Being more open minded allows me to maintain a friend group who's similarly open minded, and wouldn't ostracize me for holding opinions they don't approve of. From what I've seen this strategy works for most people, and life seems like it'd be really stressful otherwise; if I for example got a stalker and needed to start carrying a gun, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my friends will abandon me if they find out.

I of course don't begrudge anyone who feels they have to keep a closed mind in order to maintain a reputation in their community.

I disagree, but unfortunately I won't be able to engage without expressing the views that I've been told perpetuate flamewars.

The mixed use buildings you're referring to are approaching from the wrong direction. They're 1960s style office parks - sometimes a modern reinvention of them, sometimes literally a redevelopment on the same land - and you can't get a meaningful mixed use space in an area where everyone drives in at 9 and drives out at 5.

There are kernels of a political opinion in that comment, but it mostly consists of ad hominems against Trump supporters. They have a "fundamental deficit of character", they can't be trusted to avoid "bigotry and discrimination", they should "carry that black mark with them for the rest of their professional lives". I don't consider aggressive personal attacks like this to be political opinions; they're on the same level as wordless screams, attempts to rile people up rather than engage in discourse.

For those who aren't aware, the reason for this is well-known: the average POC statistically leans right on all social issues except for race.

I've been explicitly told by the HN moderators that my opinions on policing - which are well within the American mainstream and probably a touch left of center - are so controversial they constitute flamebait and I shouldn't discuss them here.

It strikes me as nonproductive to call it "stupidity" or debate whether there's a precise equality. Both halves of the country have made it clear, in word and in action, that they think some causes are worth spreading the pandemic.

The question isn't whether it's problematic in some generic sense, but whether it's hate speech or a call to violence. I'm extraordinarily skeptical that anyone sees a red triangle and thinks "ah, I understand, the triangle is telling me I should go engage in political violence".

In one of the controversies discussed in the article, Facebook banned an ad on the grounds that an upside-down red triangle constitutes hate speech - it's "a triangle symbol used by Nazis to identify political prisoners", you see. So I'm not sure the concept is quite as well-defined as you're suggesting.