Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
This forum requires a basic assumption of good faith for posters, especially when it comes to such a trivial mistake like having the wrong anchor section on a link to a short article. It was probably an artifact of their browser trying to be “helpful” when they were copying the link to the full article. Your aggression is unwarranted.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
The UK had a similar problem where they let people under 18 get these surgeries and now they have cases of people suing the government because they regret the choices the government/parents allowed them to make before they were 18. It's pretty well-researched and understood peoples brains are not fully developed before 18, often not even in the early 20's. We already know you are not good at long-term decision making when young and not good at fully understanding long term consequences of actions.
There are reasons why criminals under 18 are often treated much differently in the legal system and why that criminal history before 18 often doesn't extend past 18. We know kids do dumb shit and that's why there are legal protections in place for it.
So it's insane to me how the government has tried to silence a parent for speaking out and has basically forced him to allow a child to do something like this and he gets no say. It's insane both how he is being silenced and how this is even happening in the first place. So I agree with this case being extremely relevant to the topic of website blocking. Because who is to say once a law like this in in place it doesn't start to get extended to infringing on other kinds of free speech and things the government doesn't like?
From my understanding our free speech laws already are not as strong as America and I think we should all be opposed to anything that starts to breech what we do have, like these new laws.
To be clear, what's not mentioned in that Federalist article is that the child does have the mother's parental consent, from whom the father is currently separated.
> mitigate regret, remorse.
There are any number of studies [0] of trans "Desistance" all of which overwhelmingly show the number one reason people regret transitioning is societal, familial, or workplace treatment. The remorse comes from things like, for instance, a father refusing to use the correct pronouns or refer to his child by their chosen name. This remorse rarely comes from an actual rejection of the gender identity the individual transitioned to.
Delaying the effects of puberty until a child can make informed decisions about how their body should develop is the least abusive option compared to witholding intervention and forcing the child to undergo a puberty which is likely to cause significant psychological harm.
> Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publically to third parties that is affected.”
Sounds like they’re fine with his transphobia. He just can’t talk about it.
Still, wow. Is this really how we want to do things?
I agree with you, but I also think the commenter you're replying to agrees with you.
The issue is not that Tesla FSD should come with the hardware, the issue is that if I buy the hardware I should have the right to do whatever I want with it, and so we shouldn't leave aside that Tesla prevents us from running our own software.
This is relevant to the NVidia situation since their software doesn't add features, it limits things the chip is already capable of. Just like Tesla won't let you run Comma.AI or something similar on their hardware...
There's some internal debate about this in the Jewish community. Many Russian Jews were actively speaking Hebrew and publishing, for instance, Hebrew newspapers while western European Jews were mostly speaking Yiddish. Regardless I think my point is that language is a really important part of culture and saying "only 3 people speak this" doesn't ring true to me as a good reason not to treat any language as culturally important or relevant.
Huh? It was used in religious services before that and many people could speak/understand it. I don't think its dead until people actually stop using it.
Something that I've been looking for as I try to learn more about WebAssembly is good examples of tasks that, when converted from Javascript to WebAssembly, would be good uses of WebAssembly for performance or memory or other reasons. Does anybody have a link to a blog post or good documentation like that?
Determinism! [0]
I'm switching a browser game side project from Typescript to WebAssembly because determinism enables a simpler style of multiplayer. Instead of relying on a server to manage state, I can just send inputs p2p like a modern fighting game (with rollback [1]). Then the game acts just like singleplayer! For a hobbyist like me, WebAssembly makes the minefield of multiplayer so much easier to navigate.
Object enumeration order (before ES2020 [1]), math function accuracy (Firefox and Chrome did standardize on fdlibm though [2]), various timings. All of them can be fixed with caution but it might be easier to use a platform where none of them matters (well, as long as you don't import Math.sin etc. from the environment...).
In many languages like those used to compile to WebAssembly (c++, c#, rust) enumerating standard dictionaries is non-deterministic. A javascript object is a dictionary, it is not surprising that it had an undefined order. If you need order use an array, if you need to lookup a value quickly use a dictionary, if you need both then you compose some ordered dictionary structure that internally has a dictionary and an array.
I guess since so many js devs never understood this and built code around one js engines property order behavior they had to go and specify it as a standard and now all js engine must add extra overhead to track and maintain property order...
Not sure how webassembly helps object enumeration order, it doesn't have objects to enumerate! To make objects you compile to webassembly from languages that most likely have undefined dictionary order and may not even have reflection to enumerate an object at runtime.
I’m using WASM as an execution environment for game code. It’s not so much for the performance aspect, it’s more that I can run the same simulations on the client and server side and have them agree. Rather than duplicating the simulation logic, say, in JavaScript and Rust, I can write the simulation logic once in Rust and use it in both places.
It's a design tool that runs entirely in your browser as a WebAssembly-based frontend tool (coded in C++ IIRC). Go kick the tires and play around with it--you will be amazed how fast, fluid and downright native the experience feels.
IMHO I think we're going to see more and more frontend experiences like this in the near future. For certain classes of complex apps we're starting to see the overhead of all the frontend JS cruft, polyfills, reactivity, etc. are just getting out of hand and destroying browsers on low-spec phones and machines. A little Go/C++/Rust/AssemblyScript, etc. app compiled to WebAssembly interacting with the DOM directly is incredibly fast and space efficient. The build system for something like Go or Rust is so much more sane and easy to use vs. a complex modern JS Webpack setup too.
In my experience, the single biggest perk of using WebAssembly is that I can use a language I'm very productive in (Rust) compared to JavaScript. Everything else is secondary. That said, I think these projects have specific advantages by virtue of being WebAssembly:
- The backtracking search used for the crossword puzzle generator is carefully implemented to reduce memory allocations. This would be tough to do in JavaScript, and I believe it's partly responsible for its performance.
- The word game uses a compression algorithm that benefits very noticeably from wasm-opt, to the point that I can't run it without it. Given that wasm-opt takes a non-trivial amount of time at compile time, I suspect the JavaScript JIT would be slow at doing something similar at runtime. This is just conjecture, I haven't checked.
- What Aper does just wouldn't be possible without Rust features like Serde and macros.
I've experienced a 2x speedup when porting tight loops from JS to WASM. In my case, my tasks are decompression and texture decoding. I initially ported to C, and then ported to AssemblyScript, being careful to manually manage the memory along the way.
The old code was also very "tight-loop" code that's just math, and no GC allocation, so it's not applicable to many people here yet, and it's possible that JS interpreters have improved since when I ported (GC behavior has gotten quite noticeably better in V8 in the last two years), but I'll take the speedups I can get.
The YouTube series “HTTP 203” has a couple of great episodes on WebAssembly. Here’s one I like as it is both accessible and in depth: https://youtu.be/S0NQwttnr1I
In Bucket Brigade (echo.jefftk.com), I'm currently encoding and decoding Opus audio with an emscripten port of the libopus. [1] This stresses the browser pretty hard, and at some point I'd love to switch to WebAssembly.
I personally use it to simplify and synchronize encryption logic between client side and server side; makes things a breeze especially if you don’t want to mess with Javascript’s crypto APIs.
Buying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it.
In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.
I want to say: I don't talk as casually as this in a work channel, though I do sometimes discuss politics and current events. That's not because I don't think it's professional, but rather because I'm jewish and what happened to this employee feels like a very present threat.
It is a well-documented fact that neo-nazi hate groups were a significant presence in the riot and preceding "protest" at the capital. Stating that fact ultimately lead to a nazi-apologist coworker denying it, and then the jewish employee being fired.
Many white supremacists and Nazis support the state of Israel. There are a lot of reasons, but the simplest is that they want Jews to migrate there so they can create an ethnostate here.
>The current conflict began the day of the riots in Washington, DC when a Jewish employee told co-workers: “stay safe homies, nazis are about.” Some colleagues took offense to the language, although neo-Nazi organizations were, in fact, present at the riots. One engineer responded: “This is untasteful conduct for workplace [in my opinion], people have the right to protest period.”
Ctrl-F for that to see the screenshot with the full context.
If you read the full sentence in the article, you will note that it continues by saying that the label is "slandering." Something has to be untrue for it to be slander. Therefore, by saying that labeling people in the crowd as Nazis is slander, it denies that there were Nazis in the crowd.
That employee is taking the position that "there are" is equal to "all those people are", the same flawed logic is being used as a premise by a lot of commenters here.
It's so blatently wrong that it's hard to assume good faith.
Now that you pointed it out I see what you mean, but I wouldn’t call it blatantly wrong. To me the statement honestly read like it’s lumping all protesters together, or at least it’s certainly not making an obvious attempt to differentiate.
> ... or at least it’s certainly not making an obvious attempt to differentiate.
It does not need to.
Yelling "Fire!" in a cinema hall does not need to be accompanied by precise instructions as to where said fire is burning. It's a warning, not a debate.
Discord's voice chats have no apparent upper limit in how many concurrent users they support - they basically say "the upper limit is how many your client device is able to support without crapping out".
I haven't read into this but it seems like they're doing peer-to-peer for audio or the server load is INCREDIBLY efficient, given this.
This is observable to still be the case as an end user. When the discord servers are having issues, people's voices become inaudible. This can be resolved by moving the server to a different, less loaded region, even if that region should have worse connectivity to the users in the voice chat. For example, my raid group often have to bounce our server from Europe to the US to workaround reliability issues on the EU servers.
edit: found it. they use a SFU forwarder. That's the cheap version of going full centralization (MCU) benefits. they probably have a better deal on bandwidth than CPU to justify that, or all their use cases work fine with only one person transmitting at once, which gives you the same benefit of a MCU with less cpu usage...
I see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false:
We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.
Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.
I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.
The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
This is not a good argument, as it implies that if science finds a way to change sexual preference then the protection should be revoked.
Also political views can not be changed easily either, it requires exposure to facts during a long time in a way that would circumvent brain's desire to be right.
But more importantly the right of companies to refuse service as a substitution to real justice is not going to fix society, it will only make things worse when bad guys get the power. Justice requires rules, not arbitrary actions by private companies.
