Thorncorona

It's the precedent that is set.

I don’t think these types of arguments that proclaim the internet is owned by private entities make any sense.

The point of the parent comment was to discuss advocacy for a alternative and your comment essentially is replying well this is how it is currently so nothing can be done.

Since NSO is able to do these 0 click exploits on iphones does this mean they have have hacked apple engs as well and have copies of iOS lying around?

It seems if Israel is receiving money from the US government and Israel controls the usage of NSO group weapons that are being targeted at the American government then there are problems yea?

I'm sorry but this is a load of drivel.

> It’s quite the opposite, because they’ve been trained in a particular way. They’re being trained to memorize this textbook, respond to this exam. They can’t think outside of the box.

Blanket statement citation required? Despite the fact that Korea / Japan with similarly rigid education systems produce innovators?

> Give me 10 innovative, creative, young physics graduates over 50,000 physics graduates who all are able to pass the exam with 100% efficiency any day.

Lets define an arbitrary boundary where the definition can change to support any conclusion and then derive a desired conclusion.

Can someone tell me whether their 14in gives enough real estate when debugging in VS code with the terminal open?

A screenshot would be greatly apprecoated, thanks.

What do you believe would be a good line for posts?

This is some next level victim blaming for something that we don’t know happened, and can easily be handled by adults with communication channels.

It’s not as if devs go around with a visible scarlet letter for any malfeasance they get into. Nor is it reasonable brand people permanently.

Try ShareX

I can't tell if you are trying to be sarcastic so I will respond in good faith.

> Why the hell can't I be free to move freely to a place where other people accept me? Why is it that a parasitic entity (the state) has to say whether they allow me in or not?

Because when a community decides to provides services to a people it must now have standards to decide who to provide services too. There are only 2 possible ways to solve this.

1: provide services to everyone. naturally this doesn't work.

2: provide services to nobody.

> Governments, or states, are responsible for most of the destructive behavior we see in human history.

This is a consequence of the state's monopoly on violence. By joining a society you voluntarily give up power to the government in exchange for services and protections.

Wars occur as a consequence of this exchange of power when states look out for their own interests, which include the interests of its people.

> Society has never been so peaceful as today.

Because the state has a monopoly on violence and has gotten more effective at enforcing that monopoly?

> Most private entities (companies or the third sector) do good for the people and benefit nothing from the misery caused by state actors and their wars.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the other functions that states provide but some of the functions you may find beneficial are ways to resolve conflict without violence, protections to people, and a standard of living. These are again, enforced with violence. Seeing as you moved from Brazil to the Netherlands I'm sure you are aware of the benefits you are granted.

> In which country the police has the worse death statistics in such situations (at least outside of some developing world backwater)?

In which countries are there as many guns available to the public?

> In which country would such people move forward with weapons drawn, shouting commands, and making things worse?

Is this not what you would expect to happen in a so-called armed conflict? The situation was successfully de-escalated.

This argument doesn't make sense. Let's go over the series of events.

1. Someone calls 911 reporting an armed conflict reporting an active shooter situation.

2. Police respond, sending a SWAT team.

3a. Tense situation was resolved, unfortunately resulting in a heart attack.

3b. Suppose there was an actual gunman. The fast response would have saved lives.

You're sitting at home knowing post event debating the situation knowing the actual events that are taking place. The police only know 1 version of the events, which they hope are in good faith. In order to argue that the police's response was disproportionate, you would have have to known beforehand the report was bogus. But this is impossible, so the police must bring enough force to deal with a legitimate call.

The trade off here is due diligence versus response time. In the fast majority of cases, people don't abuse 911, so the polices' fast reactions are beneficial. You have to leave it up to society to minimize these types of edge cases.