Also, it seems like many people in HN politics threads over the last couple of months are in such a rush to talk about everything in terms of a clash over speech and censorship that they seem to forget about the actual clash over racial equality. There's a ton of important and complicated context around why norms for acceptable speech should change. That context is why the Facebook moderation concerns are able to come from a place of universal values, and not arbitrary zero-sum disagreement.

But hang on. What rights, and which viewpoints, and what are people acting morally superior about? Your appeal to those ideals is not as universally applicable as you make it sound. I mean, this is pretty self-evident - one can easily pick examples of completely reprehensible beliefs that almost no one would tolerate.

Let's make this concrete. Someone who supports a policy of the government killing all American Jews could make an impassioned argument about the injustice done when a tyrannical moral orthodoxy imposes its views on a free man and vilifies him for daring to think differently, and about the tragedy of the fact that in its zeal to stamp out the dissenter it would betray its own cherished value of free thought. But it wouldn't be a very convincing argument.

And similarly the left is increasingly unconvinced by people who say that their reasonable disagreements are being demonized and complain that the usual framework of liberal democracy should protect them from that kind of treatment. When someone - anyone - finds a position monstrous enough, they're no longer going to be willing to tolerate it. That's what's happening. The human costs of our current status quo are so emotionally and ethically explosive that people come to see these issues as non-negotiable. Your appeal to those norms of civil disagreement and compromise is just not convincing if you're no longer willing to accept the consequences of playing by those rules.

Designer was a bigger win for me because I've always found the Inkscape UI baffling.

The author makes it sound like the people working on optimizing compilers are deliberately seeking out these weird corner cases and selecting some random surprising behavior for them out of a hat, gleefully imagining how confusing it will be for end users. That's not how it works. Optimizers can be extraordinarily complex and need to maximize this ill-defined thing called "performance" in a highly multi-dimensional solution space. They ping-pong around inside this space constrained only by the specific requirements of the standard, and it's not surprising that some of the techniques used would produce some counter-intuitive results if the programmer is breaking the rules and relying on undefined behavior. It's kind of like if you trained a neural network to classify cat and dog pictures, and then you showed it a picture of a fire truck and expected it to give you a useful result.

The idea of a new version of the C standard that defines some of the most surprising undefined behavior is an interesting one though, and I'd be interested to see how much that really impacts the ability of the optimizer to do its work.

As for why they're doing this, well, monetary stimulus is really all the Fed can do, ineffective as it is, and in the vacuum of fiscal intervention from Washington I guess they feel that someone has to do something. By cutting all the way to zero they also put the ball in the government's/congress's court so the focus is on their inaction, where it should be.

I apologize if this is coming off as pedantic but the damage being done by misinformation and speculation about the coronavirus is significant, and I don't think it's possible to be too zealous about precision here. Trump's claims that fears were overblown and a "hoax" have been amplified into widespread and potentially deadly skepticism that coronavirus is even a danger. People have suggested various quack cures that at best drain the resources of vulnerable people. Even saying something as seemingly-innocuous as "wear a face mask to reduce your risk" ends up having a devastating impact on healthcare providers who really need the masks but can't source them. We should be listening to public health authorities and mainstream health experts, and taking reasonable precautions, but absolutely refraining from speculation that might have unforeseeable consequences.

> The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.

> * Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).

> * Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

> These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission...

> It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.

> In general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from food products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient, refrigerated, or frozen temperatures.

Robinhood accounts are protected by the SIPC. Although with other discount brokers introducing free trading, I would tend to agree with you that continuing to use RH with its simplistic interface and appalling execution is pretty silly.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22538374

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

1. Needing to hold the option key when right-clicking in order to even see an option for moving a copied item. I don't mind the use of copy->move instead of Windows's cut->paste but why does it have to be hidden? This is surely one of the basic operations you want to perform in a file manager!

2. Needing to right click and select "open" in order to run an unsigned app for the first time. This is a counter-intuitive and pointless ritual - there should be no difference between double-clicking and selecting "open" from the context menu. If Apple wants to ban unsigned apps they should just do it, instead of hiding a workaround behind a trivial trick that the unsophisticated users Apple is ostensibly trying to protect can easily discover by accident.