simoncarter

But how can they do in a way that scales?

Certain people seem to be annoyed that they don't just ask questions that can't be verified and take the candidates word at it.

How is Facebook inherently evil?

What were some of those concepts that ended up being usefu?

It's more akin to file diffing. Developers are notified of any differences in snapshots. The developer can they either accept the new snapshot, or investigate and fix.

From the article:

"Where could a public health approach to violence be introduced next? One possibility is London, where in 2017 knife crime among under-25s reached a five-year high. In recent months, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Cressida Dick, and the mayor, Sadiq Khan, have been among those calling for a public health approach."

I agree, and try to write all my react without it, using redux, thunks and reselect heavily.

I think it's easy to say it was a design error with hindsight. I'm happy React came along, and in the future it will either get better or we'll move on to something else, heaving learnt from it's mistakes.

> As demonstrated by the instant downvote of my comment, media that isn't explicitly controlled is generally self-censored to protect the mythical reality supporting the war effort.

The downvotes of your comment don't demonstrate that. You're making insensitive assertions with no evidence to back them up. Further, others have made more intelligent contributions on the rights and wrongs of certain state powers without getting downvoted.

Completely off topic, but the comma in the title feels very out of place.

Your response implies that you've not read the thread of comments I was contributing to. I wasn't taking a position on firewalls, nor on the current publication/journal practise. Rather, joelthelion tried to argue that paywalls could possibly explain the lack of citations for more recent publications. I gave counter arguments. Not sure what your comments on the right or wrongs on paywalls and journalling practises have to do with this?

> There are researchers at companies. There are researchers with no affiliation. Many have an issue with paywalls even though you haven't.

I never made any comment either way. I really don't see how you can make that comment. Just mentioned that researchers I have known find ways to get round paywalls, if they ever happen to to encounter one, if needed, including even emailing the author of the papers. If you want to publish you can't submit a paper for review without having demonstrated knowledge of the related literature, and where your work fits within that. Researchers will find a way to read and cite the relevant literature that they need to, and thus can't be used an excuse for lower citations for more recent papers.

EDIT: Didn't intend for my post to be harsh.

Most academic institutions pay to have access to the large academic sites. If you do need to read a paper that's still behind a paywall, you usually email someone at a different university who does have access, or even just look up the authors academic page, which will often have a pdf. So I can't see paywalls being an issue. It certainly never was for me or my former colleagues.

> In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any.

My understanding is different for the UK. If you refuse to show a police officer the photos, they have the right to take you to a station, where they will examine the photos. Like you, i'm not a lawyer.

>Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you (and this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on the law of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the act of committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other words, something worthy of half a year or more in prison.

What you say is true about the citizens arrest, but as was mentioned in the article, my understanding was that they are able to call the police because you've been acting suspiciously, and that they have that 'right' to call the police if you are seen taking photos. They can't hold you, but then most people stay, because leaving is seen as an admission of guilt/being a terrorist. Would be nice if this was tested in a court of law, or to hear from someone who knows if it has. Even then i'm not convinced a Judge won't just say "Well, in this post 9/11 time, people should be expected to be stopped if they take photos of high value targets."

EDIT: Taking photos of a building == Acting suspiciously. Not what I believe, just what I understand is argued, often, when security guards call the police because you've been seen taking photos of their building.

In that case, the presence of the cameras gave a sense of security that was unwarranted. It didn't prevent the crime from happening, but did let the citizens think that that their presence would detract criminals, which it didn't, at least in their case, and that if there was a crime, the culprits would have a higher chance of being convicted.