"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."

But as I think you'll agree, the problem is that "the people listening" often don't show the door (that's why hateful accounts gain such large followings), and it's up to the corporate owners to do the deplatforming.

But I agree it's better PR to describe it as "people" doing it. The manufacturing of consent necessary to maintain our democracy is much easier if we trick "the people listening" into thinking they are doing it, instead of it being done to them by 3rd parties.

In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.

So libel on top of computer sabotage.

You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.

[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would sell-out their co-workers? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?

Of course you presumably have a good source backing up your claim that Blacks are afraid to identify their race on the census, and trustworthy alternate statistics counting the racial makeup of the US?

Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains.

The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.

But state and federal funding supplements local tax school funding to achieve approximately equal funding per pupil, and the US is 4th in the world (behind only Luxembourg, Norway, and Iceland) in per-student primary education spending [1]. So what makes those schools "good"?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-ed...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

In other words, it is the learned and wise decision of the honored judiciary that the entire sentence excluding computer programs is there just for decoration. Like flavor text on a Magic card. As a layperson I naturally defer to their expert judgement.

They oppose financial aid to young families, flexible working hours, and the promotion of living in multigenerational/extended family homes, where relatives help care for children, and free schooling/kindergartens? There are many countries, past and present, with above-replacement fertility, so this is nothing but pretend-helplessness. Israel, for example, is a modern economy, yet has a 2.9 fertility rate [1]. France and Ireland are at 1.8 - just a small push away from the 2.1 replacement level.

From the point of view of the native population (and not "the economy"), immigration is the worst option - not only does it introduce a competing group, it allows the system that resulted in their sub-replacement fertility to persist, where otherwise some change would be forced to come about.

[1] And better gender equality than the US, as well as China. The latter has a 1.2 fertility rate, which, together with the high fertility of Islamic countries, shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

All running on the implicit assumption that "xenophobia" is simply incorrect (not just morally wrong) - that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they benefit from more competitors in the same territorial and ecological niche.

Unlike what your sibling comment claims, I'm not saying all software is equally important, or must have equal effort invested in securing it. But insecurity absolutely is infectious, and the more insecure the general environment is, the harder it is to secure a small part of it.

For example, you'll want a compiler. How secure is the web stack of the page that delivers your gcc/clang? How secure is its host's infrastructure, and of the DNS provider? The browser you're downloading it with? Did you ever visit any other page that might have compromised it? What about your text editor, your OS, the SDK you're using to flash code onto the pacemaker.. And all of them have vast supply-chain networks.

Don't buy their framing - every website with user-uploaded content is an "adult website" in the eyes of this law. If one of your users uploads a single jpeg of porn/hateful political rant/description of self harm, you'll be liable for "not implementing adequate measures to prevent minors from being exposed to pornography/harmful material/incitement to violence".

"Adequate measures" are, of course, a complete loss of anonymity, adding your website to the surveillance state apparatus.

Moreover, it is untenable to maintain a small island of "secure software" for "important things" in a vast ocean of careless and vulnerable code. Inevitably, the island gets infected, and not even air-gaps can save it, as stuxnet showed.