misuba

Where are the people who are asking for help with this? Will people who value having fewer distractions on their screens be opted into this great content?

And what about spam?

At least they have the decency to tell you who they work for right in their name.

...or played with systems that got them more of what they want, instead of insisting they want a RNG despite always being unhappy with what it gives them.

What's the emoticon for mortal terror, though?

True of rent, for sure. The rest is fairly stable.

So split it up. Most React projects make use of Webpack or Browserify, or use ES6 modules via Babel. There are emerging patterns for keeping concerns in separate places but still having one component you can drop in declaratively.

If there were profit in solving real problems, there wouldn't be any real problems.

> News was their product, but they made their money by delivering ads to everyone's doorstep on a daily basis.

How does Google make money?

As discussed elsewhere in the thread, rights are not at issue; social consequences are. This is about a group of people saying, "not everything you have the right to do is beneficial. When introducing something into a given conversation in a given way, for the mere sake of the performance of your right, has known negative effects on the conversation and the people in it, you're not being a free speech warrior; you're being a jerk."

A common disease in any "crowd," yes.

They've never liked it. Now they're being listened to.

(I look forward to finding out over the next decade how many plain facts I can quote that I will then hear repeated back to me as a label for "that crowd.")

These things have always been socially negotiated, though. We have a new social playing field and we aren't fully sure how it works; that is a much more useful focus for this issue than free speech is.

Where you read "safety" in this article and other discussions of the issue, it's illuminating to substitute the words "regard as full human beings."

Contexts that don't regard certain classes of people - those with a history of this lack of regard - as full human beings are going to be considered obsolete by today's undergraduates. That's just a given. Repair these contexts and universities would see a lot of these problems go away.

There are, of course, contexts you can't repair - namely, works that have value but were made in, or contain, obsolete contexts. The recontextualization work here can be difficult, it's true, but universities and professors that don't do it are going to be hearing about it.

Hey man, I just finished "What is Code," gimme a minute to refill my magazine-article bar.

As for my admittedly prejudicial feelings towards The Economist, it's been a long ride and I couldn't point to anything specific. I've just developed a tendency not to be surprised when they don't regard certain things as important, or certain other things as fallible.

> However, it is pretty clear the intent of the academic in question was to promote discussion and debate about racism.

The Internet - yes, that other one with all the SJWs and their vapid twitterings - has a saying it is wise to take to heart: "Intent is not magic." The particular intent cited has even less magic than most, precisely because it's so often used as a defense by people who are essentially trolling under cover of art.