youreincorrect

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that these SCOTUS opinions are more transparent than, for example, the 5,000+ page bills passed by Congress that you know could have only been written by teams of lobbyists rather than actual representatives.

I agree, but with the noted caveat that pedestrians who are completely oblivious to their surroundings are usually only a danger to themselves, whereas drivers who are even somewhat oblivious to their surroundings can be far more dangerous.

When I lived in SF, I saw this constantly btw. I probably saved on guy's life who saw a walk sign turn on at an intersection, proceeded to look at his phone, and stepped into the intersection. Meanwhile a car was running the red light at a fast speed (it was crossing Market somewhere up near 2nd Street), so I had to tug this guy by the back of his shirt to prevent him from getting creamed. And he actually gave me an annoyed look. This was sometime around 2015 though, so just an anecdote that doesn't have much to do with the data in the article.

> Had human level AI agents existed at the time we wrote the constitution I can assure you it would have been written different.

You can assure me of that? Really?

Edit: If you're going to downvote me, how about you instead provide an explanation of how this can be assured? Or, you know, GFY.

When people talk about Bitcoin's potential demise, they are referring to its price and perceived value, not whether it will cease to exist necessarily.

Madoff also was not ultimately caught and his scheme ended because of the accounting fraud being revealed (i.e. the fraud was not that important). That happened later. He was caught because a market downturn resulted in him being unable to acquire new victims for the Ponzi scheme, which would have otherwise perpetuated it by taking new money in and using that to pay out existing investors.

[flagged]

Exactly.

And, furthermore, the finding is akin to a form of survivorship bias. 'We found they stopped talking to each other and promoting hate online.' Okay, and what did they do next? Did they just stop hating people? Did they figure out a way to start meeting in person without Facebook to mediate the conversation? Did some of them become increasingly isolated that they decided to act out? Did some people who weren't members of the hate group happen to see this form of censorship and start to change their own minds? I'm not saying any of these outcomes are what happened or are inevitable, I'm wondering how they can call this real science when they don't even bother looking at the other effects outside of their water-is-wet conclusion.

It seems fair to discuss because we all know that research like this will be used to justify censoring "hate" groups that are not actually hate groups.

Nowhere am I suggesting they should nationalize it. Reread the comment.

> Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it.

Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in existence ever capable of creating some mysterious chemical yet also only have a $50B market capitalization (if their chemicals were so rare, impossible to produce, and highly sought after, market cap would be higher).

> The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again.

I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public.

I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

Most of the problems software engineers are solving today are business problems defined by stakeholders in a business.

And yes, I agree we should be an expert in something. Harping on binary seems like a waste of time, however. I would certainly like that people are interested enough in the field that they spend their time learning as much as they can about CS, but I'm under no illusion that I'm going to automatically be more productive or better as a software engineer because I know bit-fields.

PS: Thank you for downvoting me.

Do you suppose it's possible that accessing the DOM to add a div implicitly requires access to page data?

It's absolutely insane to pretend most software engineers need to do any of these things. We're making billions of dollars in aggregate without knowing this stuff. Most people aren't writing their own data compression algorithms, and we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts (i.e., mathematicians).

I'm guessing 80% don't even know bit-field flags and never have to use them, despite them being relatively simple. It would also take someone moderately capable at understanding math less than an hour to "learn." I learned them when I was 13 because I fucked around with MUD codebases, and I don't think I am special for it.