There's so many positives to living in an apartment that are pretty much direct effects of the denser housing.

SA - 36

CAR - 20

DR Congo - 13.5

Uganda - 10.4

Nigeria - 10

How about some poor countries from Europe?

Ukraine - 6.1

Bulgaria - 1.3

War-torn countries in Asia?

Iraq - 10

Afghanistan - 6.6

Here's a report from the SA police on crime for 2020 - https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/421424/south-afri...

I can see that there were 22k murders on a population of about 60 million.

I couldn't find USA crime statistics for 2020, which has seen a surge of murders; but the 2019 statistics show 19k murders on a population of over 300 million. Even taking the increase into account, that's a factor difference of x4-5.

Here's wikipedia's page on intentional homicide rate by country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

SA's rate of 36 for 2018 is only surpassed by countries in Central America, like Venezuela and Honduras. The US's rate for 2018 is 5.

To me, it's more plausible to believe that the world we "experience" practically does not exist, and our memories and perceptions very rarely match reality, than to concede that these particular collective personal experiences amount to evidence of anything.

"Somewhere in the middle" would be "yeah, I don't know what causes that, but neither do you" - that leaves us pretty much nowhere, very very far from aliens.

For example, the first article agrees that "async is colored"(despite the title), but that the big issue of "colored" functions, "You can only call a red function from within another red function", doesn't exist in Rust. This is also a major point in the second article.

I think a more accurate description would be that Rust async is informed by painful async implementations(Javascript) and has tried to avoid most of their shortcomings.

Let's try to do it differently. One solution is to only allow truthful statements - this would most likely catch Powell. But that means you have to litigate every defamation claim on its merits, you would need a trial for each to determine whether the statements are "true" or not. Consider the complexity of the Oracle vs Google case, how difficult it is to establish facts in front of a court. Now imagine every giant corp brings defamation lawsuits against its detractors - sue all the random bloggers trying to bright to light that your medicine doesn't work, or that you're using child labor. Of course you have "mountains of evidence" against it, or at least you can claim so, and force a lengthy trial against people who can't afford it. How would you tackle this problem?

Even worse, what if you publish an extensive expose, but some of your facts are wrong? This is actually what happened in the decision that paved the way for the modern defamation defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) Back then, it was the government trying to silence civil rights activism, nowadays it's more and more large corporations that would rather not have their dirty laundry aired. I genuinely don't see a way to amend the standard without sacrificing a lot of freedom of speech in the process.

What would have happened if Theranos sued all the publications that exposed their nonfunctional product? Would the publications even risk publishing if defamation suits always hang over their heads?

> Powell’s wild accusations are demonstrably false. Far from being created in Venezuela to rig elections for a now-deceased Venezuelan dictator, Dominion was founded in Toronto for the purpose of creating a fully auditable paper-based vote system that would empower people with disabilities to vote independently on verifiable paper ballots. As it grew, Dominion developed technology to solve many of the technical and voter intent issues that came to light as a result of the 2000 Presidential Election. Its systems are certified under standards promulgated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”), reviewed and tested by independent testing laboratories accredited by the EAC, and were designed to be auditable and include a paper ballot backup to verify results.1 Since its founding, Dominion has been chosen by thousands of election officials throughout the United States to provide the technology to effectively administer transparent and fully auditable elections

I couldn't find Powell's exact statements, but they seem to be some convoluted link between Dominion and a different voting system manufacturer. Unfortunately this particular claim is very difficult to prove defamation on; Dominion's a public figure, so as long as Powell presented some sort of flimsy evidence, she can claim that her opinion was based on it. It would require a finding of "actual malice", that she absolutely knew the evidence was wrong, in order to claim defamation, and as you can imagine, that's a very high bar.

What's more likely to hurt her is number 4, where Dominion claims she used a forged document as evidence. If they can somehow prove that she was aware the document was a forgery, then they seem to have a reasonable chance of success there. Fortunately, in a motion to dismiss, the judge looks at all evidence as favorable to the plaintiff, so perhaps a few of their claims will survive. We'll see, and IANAL, but even if I was, this isn't legal advice :)

Keep in mind, you can make anything sound ridiculous with some writing skills. How about an alternate headline - "Dominion tries to silence people claiming flaws in their voting system"?

Here's the motion to dismiss, since it's not available at the link from the article: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-...

The meat of the defamation defense is around page 27-28. The tl;dr is: Powell's statements were opinion, not fact, and she provided the factual source that she was basing her opinion on - classic free speech, classic defamation defense.

I certainly get the funny part about politicians(well, lawyers in this case) being untrustworthy, but defamation is purposefully narrow to allow more speech in the arena, not less. It's not so funny in a different case where a quack brings a defamation suit against the blogger exposing their product as bullshit, or when a giant corp decides to silence people online critiquing their awful business practices.

- The site is hosted on Yandex

- Yandex is owned by the FSB

- Therefore, visiting the site is unsafe because..? The FSB will embed an exploit in it in attempts to hack you? Because you will divulge private information(beyond playing the game) to the FSB? It's unclear what the threat you are trying to combat is.

This is besides the point(I am ready to believe for the sake of argument that Yandex is indeed owned by the FSB), but the wikipedia page you linked doesn't seem to support your argument. It seems like Yandex is trying to thread the needle between legal law enforcement requests and the safety and privacy of their users. Here's the full quote you ellipsed:

> In June 2019, RBC News reported that Yandex had refused a request by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) under the Yarovaya law to surrender encryption keys that could decrypt the private data of its e-mail service and cloud storage users. The company argued that it was possible to comply with the relevant law without compromising its users' privacy.[82] Maxim Akimov, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, said that the government will take action to relieve FSB pressure on the company.[83] Alexander Zharov, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, subsequently said that Yandex and the FSB had reached an agreement where the company would provide the required data without handing over the encryption keys.[84]

By the way, the "fighting words" decision(like the other oft-favored "fire in a crowded theater" quote) are great ironic examples of what kinds of speech you are looking to suppress - a Jehova's Witness swearing at police, and a protestor against the draft in WWI. You don't need to be imaginative to see how these "reasonable limits to free speech" will be used negatively, you only need to look at what they were created for.