--

Many people do not even do the "bare minimum" as a member of society, and they should be treated, to the greatest degree possible, like the people who do the maximum, or even just the usual. High-tax paying people, beloved teachers, famous artists, despised criminals - they should all be treated as humans, with the appropriate medical treatment according to their human needs, not their moral failures or victories.

People are the product of society, and a component in it, and they should not be judged by stereotypes, or even judged at all, when it comes to responding to their medical needs. Ideally, we'd take this approach in every area of life, but this is especially justified when applied to injured and sick people. "Misguided" is a more useful frame for many people than "evil".

Triage by prior behaviour is a poor basis for healthcare. Everyone has their own group of people they like less or more, according to their prior experiences. More importantly, the time to judge someone's moral behaviour is not at the point of healthcare delivery. Even if mistakes never happened, and your moral views are correct and correctly applied, it wouldn't be right to apply this rule because it would be the first step away from neutrality.

The status quo of neutrality is a good rule, even if on rare occasions it results in seriously injured violent criminals receiving medical treatment ahead of sick nuns. Because almost all of the time it's the rule that is the most human, on our best behaviour. And especially so when we consider that many of our own views are not solely attributable to our individual choice but are in fact strongly influenced by our place in society. Once immoral individual behaviour is the yardstick for medical behaviour, perhaps based on views about groups, it's difficult to know when you've strayed off the moral path.

It doesn't stop the issue of forced changes to code that impair that local hashing, but it's detectable by the user. Server-side encryption/hashing isn't detectable by the user, and that's an important consideration in any secure system.

Best of luck with your project.

"In arguments before us, the defence was referred to as the responsible journalism test. This has the value of capturing the essence of the defence in succinct style. However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets. I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”"

Decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index...

This explanation is an answer to the question of who's a "legitimate journalist", which is that it should be about what people are doing not who they work for. That's an idea captured in the above case, which reviews some of the laws of other countries on this subject too. It was in the context of defamation, but it's closely linked to your comments about accountability (since the everyday threat is lawsuits, not assault/arrest).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028133

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I’d start off with not doing state of the art because it’s overkill for an “MVP”. And if you don’t need proper browser rendering of pages, there’s open source crawlers out there like Nutch that might work. If you’re making one yourself, the outdated academic papers and presentations by search companies are a good resource as the basic ideas of crawling and indexing haven’t changed too much (even if ranking and other components have changed a lot). A search engine is really a set of related components and there are many examples out there to use as inspiration for your MVP.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24545885

Points: 1

# Comments: 0