Why should a foreign marketplace get the same benefit of the doubt as a domestic market? Especially if those foreign markets belong to countries that are hostile to mine?
Not easially. Shipping to the US is not hard, and the post office / customs doesn't know what company is sending things. Customs can check of course, but for small value packages they typically do not, so long as the import forms look somewhat reasonable and the import taxes are paid they generally are not looking that close. It is even harder if someone knows they are an illegal company as then they put a false return address on the package and there is no easy way to track them down.
Regular people are not someone custom wants to make an example of for ordering from a banned foreign company. Large companies will carefully check their supply chain to ensure they are not buying goods from banned companies, but tiny companies and regular people won't care as much.
I expect that the EU will have (if they don't already have) rules similar to the US and countries there will generally enforce them. However other countries (China!) will not care as much.
Classic Hacker News to complain about the market abusing the public's trust but when someone suggests a government make a change that benefits their own constituents over other countries it's down voted.
It's comments like this that convince me most programmers are arogant douchebags. Just because someone has a weird idea about an event that had almost no direct affect on the general population doesn't mean we should remove those peoples ability to have a choice in matters which will effect them.
Knowing more than someone else does not make you morally superior or give you more of a right to have a say in your own fate.
If that were the case we would give babies, kids and teenagers the right to vote. Kids would always vote in a superhero or ice cream. And chocolate would win in a landslide.
We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.
We only allow those of a certain age to be juriors for that reason.
> We only allow those of a certain age to vote because they are able to understand and weigh the issues fairly.
Yes, but we draw a simple, arbitrary rule at a fixed age because everyone grows older, so it isn't manipulable by anyone who is motivated to do so.
If the vote permission line is drawn by more complex means that gives a different answer for different people, it becomes a primary target for manipulation, abuse, and group selectivity.
For example if it was based on IQ tests or even general knowledge tests, it is already well understood that these are heavily biased tests which test for social background, culture and upbringing, rather than general intelligence.
If there's going to be a voter test, it needs to be extremely robust, something just about everyone has confidence in to be fair and appropriate.
Or the other more logical reason being that free speech platforms are typically only clones of more poput platforms which don't offer any more features or increase ease of use.
I think it's completely possible for a popular pro free speech platform to exist provided it is able to be more user friendly or have some other killer feature.
> Unfortunately, both you, the media, and the looters keep forgetting the events are, as you said, history.
But history can be important. Literally everything that's known and has been done is now history, including recently committed crimes.
The history that we're talking about still has clearly identifiable painful consequences in present-day communities, so it's not something that can just be filed away and ignored as no longer relevant.
What does "history" mean? The suffering of innocent bystanders in past riots is history. In a year the innocent bystanders of these riots will be "only history".
Many of the immigrants who have created new businesses in the US have experienced terrible histories themselves, but they have been able to put these behind them, because their antagonists are not in the US.
I don't think historic injustices should be simply ignored, but the problem is even more severe when the systemic abuses your community is experiencing is not only in the past, not only occurring in the moment, but there is realistic prospect that conditions will to improve.
Private companies militarizing police forces never face liability, and sworn, armed officers belong to unions, and neither of those seems on a course to changing.
It is a completely untenable situation for American citizens to be extra-judiciously killed by government employees. Rioting doesn't help, peaceful protests don't help, you can't even respectfully kneel during the national anthem without being treated as though you're rejecting everything about the country. Petitions? Hunger strikes? Self-immolation?
If it were purely history, we wouldn’t be seeing the violence, injustice, and disparity we see today. The problem is that isn’t “history”, it’s ongoing.
What about this event indicates racism was involved? Because the cop is not behind bars? That is most likely due to union rules and procedures which have to be followed.
Terraria: Otherworld was a planned spinnoff version of Relogic's main game Terraria which never came to fruition. Redigit, the president of Relogic, has stated that if he can get 100,000 signatures, he will open-source the game.
You're not the only one. I'm this way too. However, I can listen to music while doing system admin stuff but for anything else I need absolute silence.
