Does popularity imply ethics? Morality? Soundness of policy?
What exactly does "antidemocratic" imply? Are antidemocratic activities intrinsically wrong?
My grandmother in law was dragged before the KGB to answer why her 4 year old had coloured the colours of thier territories flag (before annexation into the USSR).
I think it's pretty naive to reject that people could genuinely have grievances against a government or government policy. Slavery was popular. Gang rape is very democratic.
Although thier issues were with a government and not the concept of "communism", I think the onus is on you to charitabley acknowledge that distinction. Being the grown up comes with infinitely more responsibility than privilege... and people who don't understand that aren't actually the grown ups.
I expect they won't be caught, frankly. If for no other reason than statistically, most crimes of this nature do not get solved. About 30% is the statistic for burglaries and property damage. So, even if the person had a MEDIAN capacity, the odds are already stacked in thier favour.
Given that these are flock cameras... pretty fair to say this was done with some degree of due diligence. It was motivated out of principle, not personal gain, not desperation. Based on that alone, I'd spitball down to a 10% chance.
One step further... this fits the profile of a video I saw where a "reporter" was explaining how flock cameras get taken down, and exactly what "people" are doing to avoid being caught. There exist volumes of information on exactly what a successful flock takedown looks like. Given that, I'd further drop it to well below 5%.
The cops won't find them on thier own. Only realistic avenue to zero in on the person is a tip. If the person was smart, they didn't blab.
And even if they did, they didn't keep anything that could meaningfully link them to the act. Even if they end up getting charged, without a smoking gun (flock components in thier garage) actually getting the conviction would be pretty much impossible. Someone ratting them out isn't nearly enough for a conviction on its own.
Because it was motivated on principle, there is a non zero chance the person who did it might just defiantly confess (proclaim, like a manifesto) if they get charged. But still unlikely.
I'd be shocked if anyone even gets charged. I genuinely don't think there is ANY real chance of a conviction.
Wasn't even the wildest. Before compsci I was doing mechanical engineering.
We had an assignment to design a railcar layout for transporting livestock. It gave the minimal parameters for the animals, established client driven acceptable losses for the livestock, etc...
We all cracked away at it. After we handed them all in, the profs were like "nowhere in the spec was the actual animals named, was no one curious?"
Silence.
They had given us a literal Nazi RFP discovered post WWII. It was for moving people to fucking concentration camps.
"You're smart people. People are going to ask you to do bad things. They're going to try and hide thier intentions. Don't collaborate with Nazis. Don't ever use what I teach you to hurt people."
I feel like this isn't super new. You haven't been able to do things like talk academically about network security or cryptography without being incredibly critical of government for decades.
My professors sure were. I felt really bad for them, honestly. They were the driving force to make philosophy and ethics courses mandatory at my university in order to recieve a comp sci degree.
"If you work in these areas long enough, at a high enough level, you WILL be asked to compromise something for the benefit of a state actor, and you might not even realize it's happening. The person asking you to do it might not even realize what is really happening." Was what our prof told a packed lecture hall.
I think that breaking a constant evaluated value into an expression that is still a constant comprised entirely of literals is bad.
Extract the constants (100 and 1) to NAMED constants if you wanna do this.
Edit:
You also mentioned it might just be a side effect of a minifier. Maybe it is. I've got tons of grace if that's the case, since the dev has little if any control. Be like if I was roasting someone for what a compiler did.
You're obviously the js expert, so I'll defer to you on expected minifier behavior, but there are 3 specific reasons that id be surprised (based on what I think a minifier should do)
there is a defined variable that already exists "random", i would any minifier worth it's salt to make the variable name smaller
since the expression (100 + 1 - 1) is a constant expression, I similarly would expect a minifier to reduce constant expressions to thier evaluated value (especially if the evaluated value is fewer characters than the expression) aka, just collapse to "100"
As a former administrator of a top 100 sub, I've seen the absolute unhinged mod power tripping. My a large margin, mods were at least an equal threat to a community as the bad actors in the community.
For this reason, I've been a major proponent of a model where groups of users can generate and curate thier OWN collaboratively maintained ban lists, and users can with full visibility OPT IN to different filters.
As well, I think being able to "opt in" to users to see mod removed comments, or "opt out" of a mods comment removals would be cool. I think removed comments remain in the modlog and could be re-injected into what users see given appropriate "opt in" configuration.
Having a decentralized mechanism to manage and opt in to such lists would provide a way to combat power tripping at a grassroots level, as well as allowing broad filtering to let people choose thier experience.
This is all entirely predicated on it being:
A) with full auditable transparency
B) a clear opt-in mechanic
Hard disagreements between curators can easily be handled by forking the lists.
Long story short, I really like the idea of managed content suppression (and ideally un-supression) lists curated by regular users available in an opt-in manner because they act as a counterbalance mechanic to the outsized power that mods hold an INEVITABLY abuse.
But it's so fucking far from ethical to try and just sneak one in. I genuinely can not understand how much contempt for the agency of other human beings one must have to be able to rationalize such a thing.
That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.
To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It's politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.
I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.
But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of "quality check". A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.
A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.
Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.
I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.
I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover... they're elected. It is convenient and safe. But they're not really doing thier jobs.
This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a "Supreme court") just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.
Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.
This is a fantastic comment. Not necessarily because it's universally true, but because it highlights variance in lived experience. There is a truth, but not the truth.
It highlights the reality that your body sends a demand for action, but it diminishes and oversimplifies the great challenge, the true mountain, of consciously mapping a instinctive solution, to a true need, to an optimal course of action to meet the need.
I want chips? Am I hungry? Is my blood sugar low? Am I experiencing an acute deficiency of saturated fats? Are my electrolytes imbalanced? Although it's likely chips will solve it, there are several distinct underlying issues your body says chips are the solution. "Belly not full" is a gross oversimplification of what the issue may be, and without a full comprehension of the specific nature of the desire for chips, it's possible and likely an attempt to outsmart yourself will end in failure.
I bring this specific case up... I even shared it and my surrounding confusion with my doctor... because a few weeks after starting vyvans I had the desire to eat a vegetable for the first time in approximately 40 years. It was SHOCKING to me to realize that my body was already able to add meaningful specificity to my brutish and animal nature.
And to be honest... "chips" is probably by a large margin the least complex. A cigarette. An energy drink. Alcohol. The depth of confusion of root cause on the alchemy your subconscious has been formulating for decades of trial and error, behind your back?
When Karen says to listen to your body, they are saying one thing. It is not the thing that ADHD people need to hear. They are not the same thing. That is OPs point, and they are right. The mechanics are fundamentally different. It isn't wrong to highlight that Karen's communicative intention is flatly based on a distinct experience which is not directly applicable in a meaningful way.
You're saying "Listen to your body... and know that it is giving you a solution rather than telling you a problem, your goal is to bridge that gap".
Karen isn't false. OP isn't false. You aren't false. You're all just expressing lived experience.
Does popularity imply ethics? Morality? Soundness of policy?
What exactly does "antidemocratic" imply? Are antidemocratic activities intrinsically wrong?
My grandmother in law was dragged before the KGB to answer why her 4 year old had coloured the colours of thier territories flag (before annexation into the USSR).
I think it's pretty naive to reject that people could genuinely have grievances against a government or government policy. Slavery was popular. Gang rape is very democratic.
Although thier issues were with a government and not the concept of "communism", I think the onus is on you to charitabley acknowledge that distinction. Being the grown up comes with infinitely more responsibility than privilege... and people who don't understand that aren't actually the grown ups.
I expect they won't be caught, frankly. If for no other reason than statistically, most crimes of this nature do not get solved. About 30% is the statistic for burglaries and property damage. So, even if the person had a MEDIAN capacity, the odds are already stacked in thier favour.
Given that these are flock cameras... pretty fair to say this was done with some degree of due diligence. It was motivated out of principle, not personal gain, not desperation. Based on that alone, I'd spitball down to a 10% chance.
One step further... this fits the profile of a video I saw where a "reporter" was explaining how flock cameras get taken down, and exactly what "people" are doing to avoid being caught. There exist volumes of information on exactly what a successful flock takedown looks like. Given that, I'd further drop it to well below 5%.
The cops won't find them on thier own. Only realistic avenue to zero in on the person is a tip. If the person was smart, they didn't blab.
And even if they did, they didn't keep anything that could meaningfully link them to the act. Even if they end up getting charged, without a smoking gun (flock components in thier garage) actually getting the conviction would be pretty much impossible. Someone ratting them out isn't nearly enough for a conviction on its own.
Because it was motivated on principle, there is a non zero chance the person who did it might just defiantly confess (proclaim, like a manifesto) if they get charged. But still unlikely.
I'd be shocked if anyone even gets charged. I genuinely don't think there is ANY real chance of a conviction.
Wasn't even the wildest. Before compsci I was doing mechanical engineering.
We had an assignment to design a railcar layout for transporting livestock. It gave the minimal parameters for the animals, established client driven acceptable losses for the livestock, etc...
We all cracked away at it. After we handed them all in, the profs were like "nowhere in the spec was the actual animals named, was no one curious?"
Silence.
They had given us a literal Nazi RFP discovered post WWII. It was for moving people to fucking concentration camps.
"You're smart people. People are going to ask you to do bad things. They're going to try and hide thier intentions. Don't collaborate with Nazis. Don't ever use what I teach you to hurt people."
I feel like this isn't super new. You haven't been able to do things like talk academically about network security or cryptography without being incredibly critical of government for decades.
My professors sure were. I felt really bad for them, honestly. They were the driving force to make philosophy and ethics courses mandatory at my university in order to recieve a comp sci degree.
"If you work in these areas long enough, at a high enough level, you WILL be asked to compromise something for the benefit of a state actor, and you might not even realize it's happening. The person asking you to do it might not even realize what is really happening." Was what our prof told a packed lecture hall.
Jackdaws?
Misquoted.
He ACTUALLY said within 24 hours of being president ELECT.
So it's actually even worse than 559, it's 634.
I understand what is happening.
I think that breaking a constant evaluated value into an expression that is still a constant comprised entirely of literals is bad.
Extract the constants (100 and 1) to NAMED constants if you wanna do this.
Edit: You also mentioned it might just be a side effect of a minifier. Maybe it is. I've got tons of grace if that's the case, since the dev has little if any control. Be like if I was roasting someone for what a compiler did.
You're obviously the js expert, so I'll defer to you on expected minifier behavior, but there are 3 specific reasons that id be surprised (based on what I think a minifier should do)
there is a defined variable that already exists "random", i would any minifier worth it's salt to make the variable name smaller
since the expression (100 + 1 - 1) is a constant expression, I similarly would expect a minifier to reduce constant expressions to thier evaluated value (especially if the evaluated value is fewer characters than the expression) aka, just collapse to "100"
there is still a ton of extraneous whitespace
(100 - 1 + 1) ??
How do you know the stage at the developer conference is level? The js speaker is drooling out of both sides of his mouth.
As a former administrator of a top 100 sub, I've seen the absolute unhinged mod power tripping. My a large margin, mods were at least an equal threat to a community as the bad actors in the community.
For this reason, I've been a major proponent of a model where groups of users can generate and curate thier OWN collaboratively maintained ban lists, and users can with full visibility OPT IN to different filters.
As well, I think being able to "opt in" to users to see mod removed comments, or "opt out" of a mods comment removals would be cool. I think removed comments remain in the modlog and could be re-injected into what users see given appropriate "opt in" configuration.
Having a decentralized mechanism to manage and opt in to such lists would provide a way to combat power tripping at a grassroots level, as well as allowing broad filtering to let people choose thier experience.
This is all entirely predicated on it being:
A) with full auditable transparency
B) a clear opt-in mechanic
Hard disagreements between curators can easily be handled by forking the lists.
Long story short, I really like the idea of managed content suppression (and ideally un-supression) lists curated by regular users available in an opt-in manner because they act as a counterbalance mechanic to the outsized power that mods hold an INEVITABLY abuse.
But it's so fucking far from ethical to try and just sneak one in. I genuinely can not understand how much contempt for the agency of other human beings one must have to be able to rationalize such a thing.
I don't think anyone believes that decay of nuclear material would be the earliest cause for the weapon to malfunction.
The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn't hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn't YOUR property.
An Australian family moved to my town on some kind of exchange and yah, the one kid was still wearing a jacket at 30. Literally never wasn't cold.
Taught us how to play cricket, he was a cool kid.
Artist is reminding us all that (despite everything) within every small rock there is a pebble.
That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.
To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It's politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.
I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.
But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of "quality check". A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.
A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.
Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.
I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.
I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover... they're elected. It is convenient and safe. But they're not really doing thier jobs.
Anyhow, that's my 0.02
Really does make a bold political statement.
Ok, yeah, this sounds reasonable to me.
This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a "Supreme court") just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.
Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.
Im curious what the alternative to an ultimate judicial authority might look like?
This is a fantastic comment. Not necessarily because it's universally true, but because it highlights variance in lived experience. There is a truth, but not the truth.
It highlights the reality that your body sends a demand for action, but it diminishes and oversimplifies the great challenge, the true mountain, of consciously mapping a instinctive solution, to a true need, to an optimal course of action to meet the need.
I want chips? Am I hungry? Is my blood sugar low? Am I experiencing an acute deficiency of saturated fats? Are my electrolytes imbalanced? Although it's likely chips will solve it, there are several distinct underlying issues your body says chips are the solution. "Belly not full" is a gross oversimplification of what the issue may be, and without a full comprehension of the specific nature of the desire for chips, it's possible and likely an attempt to outsmart yourself will end in failure.
I bring this specific case up... I even shared it and my surrounding confusion with my doctor... because a few weeks after starting vyvans I had the desire to eat a vegetable for the first time in approximately 40 years. It was SHOCKING to me to realize that my body was already able to add meaningful specificity to my brutish and animal nature.
And to be honest... "chips" is probably by a large margin the least complex. A cigarette. An energy drink. Alcohol. The depth of confusion of root cause on the alchemy your subconscious has been formulating for decades of trial and error, behind your back?
When Karen says to listen to your body, they are saying one thing. It is not the thing that ADHD people need to hear. They are not the same thing. That is OPs point, and they are right. The mechanics are fundamentally different. It isn't wrong to highlight that Karen's communicative intention is flatly based on a distinct experience which is not directly applicable in a meaningful way.
You're saying "Listen to your body... and know that it is giving you a solution rather than telling you a problem, your goal is to bridge that gap".
Karen isn't false. OP isn't false. You aren't false. You're all just expressing lived experience.
I know things were going badly in Iran, but didn't know this badly.