hvdijk

Except that the HTML spec explicitly states just before that regex that what it checks is not whether it's a valid e-mail address, and that it intentionally rejects valid e-mail address.

> The right to free speech does not protect your right to commit crimes or [...]

If hate speech were to be made a crime, your exact same argument "the right to free speech does not protect your right to commit crimes" could and would be used as an argument why the First Amendment supposedly does not apply.

> It neither helps cause physical damage nor costs the victims money. You cannot, in the US, ban the expression of a thought just because you think somewhere down the line it could result in damage to someone.

That is exactly what your example of planning to rob a bank is. The planning to rob a bank does not cause any damage. The planning to rob a bank does not cause any victims any money. Actually executing that plan does that, but the planning does not guarantee that the execution will happen. Yet if I were to say "You cannot, in the US, ban it just because you think somewhere down the line it could result in damage to someone" you would rightly dismiss it as nonsense.

> Hate speech is mostly just hurting peoples feelings.

We may disagree on the "mostly", but even you are acknowledging that it is not limited to that, so let's focus on cases that can't be considered that.

> Libel is a tort because you lie (important) to damage someone's reputation and this could cost them money.

Okay, now consider for instance well-known conspiracy theories that the world is controlled by (insert group here). They are lies, they damage the reputation of many if not most members of the group, and this could cost members of the group money. They are not libellous if not said about specific people, they are generally considered hate speech if based on any of a specific set of protected characteristics, but despite the exact same reasoning applying to both, libel would not be considered protected speech, and, as far as I understand, this particular form of hate speech would be.

It is also easy to think up scenarios where supposedly constitutionally protected hate speech "helps" cause physical damage: if without the hate speech, a group of people would be left alone, but with the hate speech, other people become convinced that it is morally defensible or even necessary to commit crimes against those people.

I can see no distinction in the constitution to justify this. I understand that this is how US courts interpret the constitution, but everything I can see tells me this is an arbitrary distinction drawn up by US courts with no actual basis in the constitution.

The US First Amendment does not say anything about libel or calls to violence. I am not aware of other amendments doing so either. What is the rationale for allowing these limitations on speech that cannot equally be applied to hate speech?

Are they UB? What rule says they are? I would not be surprised by such a rule, but I am not aware of one.

> You really just want the calculation to be settled with some well-behaved result like wrapping, or else to raise an exception.

Perhaps you do, but others don't. This compiler behaviour isn't done just for the hell of it, it's done because it's an unavoidable consequence of optimisations that some people rely on that improve performance of valid code. At the same time, other people have almost-valid/invalid code (call it what you will) that behaves as intended when less-optimised, but breaks under these more aggressive optimisations. Whether to prioritise the handling of valid or invalid code is something people will never agree on; everybody will say to prioritise the handling of the type of code that they themselves wrote. I think compilers made the right call in having this as an option so that people can choose what works best for them.

Correct, and the article does consistently spell it 3DO, it's only the link title here that uses 3D0.

The Wikipedia article you link to also claims that the 1882 Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language said that one meaning of gender was sex. Other dictionaries from well before 1955 also support this. In fact, the 1828 Webster's dictionary, available online, specifically says the meaning of sex came first, the meaning in grammar followed from that. The separation of sex and gender is recent, you're right about that and that's what I was saying too, but you're wrong that sex was the only term used before that.

> I thought trans was about changing gender, not changing sex.

Mostly true, but it's confusing. Historically, sex and gender have been used interchangeably. That is slowly changing. There are a lot of places that refer to "sex" where "biological sex", as you put it, is not what is meant. See e.g. how trans people can still get their "sex" updated on documents that refer to sex and not gender, and how many places described as single-sex are actually closer to single-gender.

If you know it's controversial, we now know "not one that would generally be considered offensive for others to mention" was, at best, being disingenuous. Is there anything else?

That explanation is directly ruled out by GP's comment: the GP doesn't think this is controversial.

The lawyer did work, thankfully.

It isn't guilt by association when the article directly uses anti-trans rhetoric.

I'm glad your experience was better than mine. I had to get a lawyer involved after the Dutch support told me I would be refunded if I returned an item, and then after I sent it back, denied the refund.