The form is just a mailto form to test how mailto links are handled in your browser / setup.
The real purpose is to use the bookmarklet at the bottom of the page on GMail.
The real question is why didn't I just change it and make it more clear? I don't know. I like mailto / protocol forms. They're pretty cool. Sending data from browser to almost anywhere, not just HTTP POST and GET. I really like that. One reason is it signals the vast affects you can have with something so simple as plain old HTML.
Ok, I'll make the font-size of the Bookmarklet bigger. Done
Edit: I also noticed the Runkit site is slow sometimes. Here is a CodePen version in case anyone needs it: https://codepen.io/dosy/full/aLMOBQ
This is the type of crime, that by definition, nobody who has the power to investigate wants to investigate.
This most likely was payback for exposing someone's offshore holdings, and the response was chosen to send a message: "Do not expose", and was done in such a bald-faced way that this crime's occurrence presupposes the existence of the very corruption needed to facilitate getting away with it, that any investigation would need to uncover.
TL;DR - that a crime like this, which requires corruption to execute and get away with, can happen, presupposes the investigative apparatus is unable to investigate it, with high probability.
Anonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.
And yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?
- Accumulation of many titles, not always held by the General Secretary. Sometimes this is Xi gaining a title of an already existing leadership group, sometimes he has created new groups, such as the "Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development" ( which is about funding military industries, sort of like the US military-industrial model ). Titles like this mean he has effective policy control over many branches of China's administration. His ability to create new groups shows his ability to reform the bureaucratic hierarchy.
- Anti corruption campaign, restore legitimacy in party with regard to people's opinions, level some playing fields, purge the party of corruption and also strengthen ideological and political support for Xi.
- Xi has been called "The Core", this term was only ever used for Mao and Deng.
- Anti-corruption has also focused on military. Result seems to be Xi has greater control of and greater loyalty from the military.
- The PLA garrison in HK broke tradition this year to address Xi as "Chairman", instead of "Commander" --a first. Perhaps this reflects that while usually the leader also Chairs the Central Military Commission, as Xi does, Xi's power is less figurehead and more effective.
- Xi has achieved many things internationally that have not been done by China ever: first overseas military base, in Africa; taking control of disputed islands in its coastal waters in defiance of neighbours; creation of the ambitious, "One Belt One Road", infrastructure, trade and investment project, to expand China's influence along a "new silk road" Westward; and exercised tighter control over old and new media, with very effective online censorship.
- In summary, he does a lot, has made many changes, is always in the news cycle as an effective leader, and has presided over a very successful period for China both with regard to domestic growth and stability, and international standing and ambitious expansion.
It's an unpopular view but I think this is a good start.
Why? Violence is supported and enabled by the narratives people use to justify it. Some element of policing & countering the narrative is going to control ideas that embolden people to commit crimes or to harm others.
It's really no different than saying the way we talk about women, or PoC, or gender, or sex helps constructs the reality of how we behave. A lot of people are already shouldering the burden of trying to police and counter how other people speak and think, but they are often not backed up by legislation in doing so.
Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just.
I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government. It's the sort of "short circuited" thinking that i think impedes people actually thinking clearly or deeply or even at all about these things. In that sense, having neat metaphors from literature to reach for actually harms the public discourse, because it is silenced before it can start.
We do need to be talking about these things, and looking at them, not stereotyping and simplifying them, so I think a proposed piece of legislation is a good start and a sign that people are waking up to the importance of the stories we tell each other about who we are, and what's okay, in shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have.
The best, less biased and least slippery slopey way to do this would be to provide more information, not less. If people are in a position to justify violence through something they read online, they also need to learn the opposite side and why that something they read might be wrong.
Of course this assumes things happen in a vacuum, but in reality people don't really justify violence by reading a thing as much as they confirm and reinforce pre-existing ideas they have. In which case all you've managed to do is to give power to already too powerful people (government) for silencing thoughts they disagree with.
Also FWIW i disagree with the notion that trying to restrict the ways people talk and think has anything to do with freedom. And consider that your thoughts about 1984 might also be your inability to see yourself being wrong (i mean if you cannot consider yourself being wrong in this case and since what you consider a good solution is shown as a bad one in 1984, then you consider 1984 to be bad instead of your solution).
I think theoretically more not less sounds technically correct, the problem is we seem to already been enveloped in too much information. So there has to be some filtering, and filtering is basically editorializing, so who decides?
I don't know if I'm right. And I don't know if I'm advancing even a coherent idea about this.
I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives, and they think to do it as well. I think narrative can give a concrete form to a pre-existing hate, frustration, anger or disatisfaction, and narrate a villain responsible for that feeling. These narratives inform and shape a person's worldview and their notions of who or what is responsible for how they feel and things they see happening. Narrative is an incredibly powerful way to guide people's actions.
Observe this: your narrative about the weakness of narrative in determining action, guides us to believe we ought not regulate narrative. You're shaping reality using the very tool you are saying cannot be used to shape it!
Double-think extraordinaire! No offence to you, just trying to (en)lighten this up.
> I think in reality people do justify violence by the narratives they are exposed to. I think they see other people justifying hate and violence with these narratives
This is true, but the question is then Plato's: who guards the narrative guards? What narratives do they tell themselves in their righteousness? Pretty much everyone ends up with a narrative about how they're doing X for the good of society, even the Nazis.
As to a condition required for this to operate safely, I think it depends on having a clear set of morals and values in society that we agree on. The West has lost that after the boom post WWII. Maybe it will find its way back, and "moral authority" will be something people mostly agree on again. I think the way we get there is by debate, so we need to be able to openly talk about and criticise a whole range of ideas, nothing should be off the table during the debating phase.
As to the operation of it with supervision, hopefully, for those of us in democracies, it operates in the same way that our democracies operate, where the guards of the people are guarded by the people. At least, that's the idea, right?
>...shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have.
There is no wrong way to talk. Nobody is advocating giving terrorists and bigots a forum where they can publicly discuss their ideas with people actually concerned with the progress of society.
But policing thoughts and criminalizing people for _reading_ something on the internet is just indistinguishable from fascism and there should be no tolerance for it. Especially not for furthering the 'right ways' in which people should talk according to your statement.
I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person is criticising the other for using a word the wrong way ( and I don't mean grammar ) or using a particular word, or having a particular idea.
>There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk.
No there is not. People are people and there have always been bigots and assholes. Just because now we have the technical means to shut everybody down who acts or talks that way does not mean that we should.
Can't you see how your well-intentioned ideal of 'talk nicely to each other' is actually an oppressing view by itself? Burying your head in the sand won't solve any problems.
First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad.
Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples:
- Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1]
- Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2]
- Stop Using Diminutives [3]
- Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4]
- Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5]
- Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6]
- Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7]
- Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8]
- Acknowledge your privilege [9]
- Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10]
For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing.
This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice movements, and love freedom. This group clearly has the best chance of contributing significantly to the debate about rules and laws for right and wrong ways for people to think and talk. If you go against that, you're pretty much in the wrong. And they've already making progress on getting this accepted across society.
What I'm saying is that, the work is currently being done without legislative backing, and starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward.
>starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward.
No it is not. Expecting everyone to know every way in which a person might get offended is just unrealistic. People, even the most well-intentioned ones, will make mistakes. So if someone does make a mistake just tell them what they did wrong and move on with your life.
Trust me I know people from "the left" and the amount people got into feminism in the last years is just crazy. Now, I'm all for women's rights and also agree with the points you listed, but for fuck's sake, give people a break. Dealing with racism and sexism is a process that takes patience and just forcing a thought-police on everyone will sure as hell not make anything better. Society can only move so fast as the slowest ones can keep up.
We're pretty off-topic by now, so this will be my last statement in this thread, but feel free to respond. Have a nice weekend!
It really is. How else can we move forward without discussing these things as a collective? It's no good if just one group decides the rules for everybody. Laws need to reflect society's norms.
> just unrealistic.
I'm sorry but I don't accept that we ought to abandon progress because it seems unrealistic. Self landing reusable rockets seemed unrealistic. International flight seemed unrealistic. Even progress on women's or PoC's issues seemed unrealistic.
If you're okay with letting people get hurt while things proceed at the natural, ambling pace of society, or whatever, because it's too hard to do otherwise, I get that, but I'm not okay with that. I think we have a duty to make things better for people. And there's no way to do that unilaterally, it has to be inclusive of the diversity of our societies, and build on the work that everyone before us has done, otherwise we're just reinforcing the existing power structures and narratives.
This kind of legislation, supporting the work people are already doing in their lives and online on places like Twitter, and Reddit, etc, would be ground breaking. And it's really not off topic, because it's the exact same type of legislation as deciding, as a society, which materials, or speech, or narrative are too harmful to be consumed or propagated. Material and speech that supports oppression and structural disadvantage is harmful, isn't it? As is material and speech that supports terrorism and violence. Maybe these things don't affect the majority, or happen all the time, but that's sort of the point.
I understand it's not easy, I understand the hassle, I understand the gut instinct to avoid anything that seems to impinge upon freedom, but some of our seeming "freedoms" are actually based on unsustainable practices, such as when our "freedom" to express a particular idea, only reinforces oppression, or normalizes violence, that ultimately hold everyone back. And policing some forms of speech, or narrative, or information as unacceptable helps make a free and just society. We shouldn't tolerate everything, especially not things that harm us. Take an example from biology, cells have walls for a reason, they are permeable, but they don't just let everything in.
I agree things move slowly. But that's why strong efforts are needed. And I also agree that so many people have become involved in this work, and I think that's why legislation needs to take some of the burden. I mean, the groundswell is an indication of a norm, no? And thank you for giving your consent for me to reply here, but as this is not just a conversation between you and me, I don't think that's appropriate nor required, because other people are reading and interested in what we say. It was good to talk! And I respect the way you made your points. I think they are a good way to live, but probably not a good way to progress society.
I think there is a disconnect between your values and many on HN when it comes to the right of free speech. You see "harm from bad speech" as a major problem in society so you naturally seek to correct it with the strongest tools you can muster. You're already using social pressure to create norms for "good speech" and now you want to move to actual legislative pressure to enforce your growing list of speech norms. I think your heart is in the right place but legislating speech is a very dangerous business. If you normalize the ability to control speech then you open the door for anyone else in power to make those decisions for you. So either you think the current "harm" is so great that its worth risking the entire future of free society or you think the risk of creating that "1984 dystopian world" is zero.
I personally think the risk is non-zero(Trump, Brexit, Black Swan events ect.) so you can understand why most people would disagree with that trade off, right?
You're right I do think there is great harm from wrongspeech. A lot of people think this as well, and there is already alot of social pressure ( good term ) used to police speech on Twitter, blogs, IRL, etc. And there is already some legislative allowance to police narratives that cause harm, specifically, I think regarding hate/terrorist speech ( I'm thinking UK ).
I don't think the risk is zero, the risk of getting any of this wrong is catastrophic. But I do think the risk is manageable. The reason it's manageable is because we can keep revising our notions through keeping the conversation going, as is currently happening. And we can keep mitigating effects through checks and balances.
So I think all this is very good, but it's not enough. Why?
To become truly effective, we need to spread from minority-awareness to majority-awareness of these issues. We need to start debating and discussing these ideas en masse. We already have "people in power" ( social power ) deciding the best way to speak, and now that these notions have moved out of the fringe and academia and into the mainstream, and are being applied to ordinary discourse IRL, we need to have everybody getting in on the conversation and debate. Otherwise how can these concepts truly become effective? These norms have to apply to and reflect and get buy-in from everybody, not just people who are working to change society. And the law is how you apply a norm universally.
Second to this, I think it's good optics. It shows we ( in the West / in America ) have the courage of our convictions, and crucially, I think, it sets a good example for the rest of the world, showing that America still has moral authority, by crystallising some of the paramount achievements of its social justice and security movements in delineating forms of speech that cause harm. It could be helpful if these people are rewarded and supported by the institutions which have for so long disenfranchised them, by having their hard work encoded in legislation. Some progress is already being made in places like Canada and Sweden, and especially in the UK. So I think your view that we are still in the "social pressure only" period is a little naive. It's already happened. It just isn't complete yet. All I'm really advocating for, I think, is that we use the already shifting tide toward legislative remedy to increase debate converation and engagement on these issues across society.
So in a sense, the controversy and discussion we are having about these, even in this thread on HN, is exactly what's needed.
I agree there is a disconnect with many on HN, or in SV, or in USA on the specifics of these issues, even tho these demographics are predominantly liberal ( I think ). We still have campus sexual assault, workplace sexual misconduct, and then there's always the not so harmful stubborn libertarians in tech. But I think there is alignment on the heart of these issues. So I'm trying to address the resistance to that. I mean, maybe the majority still doesn't see the value in policing of wrongspeech even after years of social justice activism and engagement, but that's why more work needs to be done.
I think that it's still a hotbutton issue, and there is still social inertia to discuss it openly because of how uncomfortable it can be, so I think that people who support these issues are staying silent on this thread. Also this discussion is quite meta so people may not be sure how to come into it, even if they are normally active in social justice or social safety. And if HN really disagreed with these notions outright, I'd except dozens of downvotes and it to be flagged into invisibility. There have actually been upvotes and downvotes, and the down has won narrowly. Maybe that means majority HN disagrees, or maybe we're still just uncomfortable to talk, or it could just be a small sample?
But even if HN is against this in the majority, the trend outside HN is clear. Social pressure is widespread, legislation is already happening, now is the time for mass social engagement, discussion, and debate. People need to feel involved in the conversation in order to buy-in and for these notions to become effective and applied universally.
Look, at the end of the day, maybe I'm absolutely and totally wrong. And maybe Orwell foresaw our future with all its nuanced and intersectional issues and complications. And maybe everyone on this side who are already tirelessly policing wrongspeech online and IRL are wrong, too. Maybe we'll all look back and cringe, or laugh, or whatever, at this time. But that's why we need to expand the conversation. Wrong and right will be decided by the collective. Maybe we can't say how this will play out.
I get the innate resistance to policing wrongspeech, but there's also a lot of existing buy-in to these ideas we can work with already regarding this demographic ( geek feminist code of conduct for OS projects, for example ) and I think for this demographic there's actually more to like about it than it seems at first. I put a lot of the gut rejection of this trend to the easy association with 1984, and how that prematurely suffocates thinking and debate, "Oh my god, it's like 1984 Orwellian dystopian nightmare, run!" But if we don't create a more fair and safe society by policing the speech that supports violence, hatred and harm, don't we end up with our own kind of nightmare? Maybe no genius lit dude has written that dystopia famously, but it might be just as scary and as horrible a place to be. At least I think so.
I just want to apologise for the length. Sometimes I find it takes too much effort to condense and maintain meaning. I'm really sorry.
It's interesting to think about how novels like 1984 have influenced society's perception of governments with total control, connecting totalitarianism to dystopia.
I feel like if history took a different path, we could quite easily be living in a polar opposite world where democracy and having the freedom of choice is looked at as wild and dangerous primitive society full of crime.
There are societies now with such a view of 'democracy and having from of choice'. The more conservative Muslim countries come to mind. Many of our ancestors would also see us this way. It's fully possible or descendants will look at our way of life the same way too.
Really, this liberalism of ours is an aberration. It's the way of 20% of the world population for a few decades... Nobody should be surprised if your 'polar opposite world', which comprises almost all people for almost all of history, reasserts itself.
Yes, and China is doing very well with regard to economic planning, infrastructure, GDP, development and raising of the middle class standards without democracy, and has done for 70+ years and the Chinese have a long history of being able to govern competently.
Which state? Because China's rise is corroborated by governments and press worldwide. Not sure if you're suggesting they're all in on your conspiracy. But even if they were it would probably take a lot of money and influence to buy them all off as mouthpieces, so either way, China rose. If you still doubt it, visit & see for yourself.
> Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just.
I'm not sure if this is some kind of ""false flag"" post attempting to discredit the concept of hate speech or not.
Yes, people should probably not be going around promoting the murder or degradation of their fellow citizens. No, we should be very careful about criminalizing it.
> I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government.
Are you old enough to remember the weird censorship compromise where Gerry Adams MP was allowed to speak on television only if his words were read by an actor? You don't have to look very far into UK history to find bits of illogical totalitarianism.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
This is the same argument people in favour of the death penalty use. I think there is a decent chunk of people that think that death is a reasonable punishment for certain crimes. But we don't have a magical oracle that tells us whether a person is guilty or innocent so you must consider that innocent people will be killed if you advocate the death penalty.
Similarly the government isn't some magical oracle that perfectly decides whether a website is "extremist", so you must consider that some people reading websites that you wouldn't really consider to be extremist will be sent to prison for this. Is 4chan extremist? What about Greenpeace?
It's a compelling-sounding point, but it lacks nuance.
While I don't think many are advocating for a "fantasy land" with magic oracles to give us Perfect Truth, we can certainly approach the truth of guilt or innocence, using the courts and their accreted layers of checks and balances, such as appeals, standards of proof, and revisionable legal doctrines.
And when we reasonably dispense with the requirement of "Perfect Knowledge" we are left with the imperfect but practical and broadly satisfactory result that when the courts have adjudicated someone is guilty, they most likely are. This guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" means the system is able to express and satisfy what you ( I think ) rightly say is the sense of a decent chunk of people that death is appropriate for some crimes ( not saying I agree with it being so ). That we can approach truth "to within some epsilon" seems even more correct regarding the death penalty in the US, where, at the end of death row, you've now been through many appeals ( I think, I'm no expert ).
So shifting things back from your analogy to adjudication of which materials are "extremist" (or whatever language the actual proposed bill uses), I agree ( and I think few would dissent ) that we cannot magically know for sure whether it is or isn't so, but I want to expand your thinking to encompass the idea that we can approach the truth of whether it is or isn't, with a reasonable deal of accuracy.
And given we ought to be able to approach such a judgement reasonably accurately, I feel a system like this will be able to express the notion that: censorship or banning or punishment for propagation or use of some materials and information is a reasonable punishment, because those informations are so harmful.
So, not perfect, but mostly effective, is how I would wrap that up.
A second, more general, point this leads me to is that our systems do not begin as perfect, they evolve, and we must be prepared, as a collective of people, to take risks in order that we have progress.
When new laws and so on are introduced we are not experts in them, and there is fallout, and we make mistakes, and innocent people get hurt, but society makes progress. I think the risks we are prepared to take ought to be proportional to the reduction in harm achievable, and with things like terrorist propaganda, we are talking about significant harm, and the chance to reduce it. So, to risk wrongful imprisonment, is not perfect, and it's a tragedy to innocents, but I think it's an acceptable risk given the consequences of a failure to intervene.
It would certainly be nice to ensure zero harm is ever done, but in practice, we do not have such magic oracles to tell us how to achieve that, so on the road to progress, and getting results that improve us, we fuck up and people get hurt. It's not to condone in any way that this happens, but we must face the reality that this happens, be motivated by that reality to improve those false positives, and recognize that as we make introduce new laws and norms and make efforts to intervene and improve society, there are risks, just like with any new technology.
Ultimately I think society decides whether the risks are worth the potential improvement.
Also, that you have reduced 1984 to a neat metaphor is a failing on your part, not Orwell. The man wrote hundreds of pages on the effects of totalitarianism. As did hundreds of other writers.
I fail at many things everyday, but I did not fail in the way you meant because I did not use 1984 as a neat metaphor.
What I meant was people use it as a neat metaphor, by likening anything that smells in anyway similar to 1984 with something bad, and unworthy of further consideration, thereby prematurely stunting critical debate.
Hilariously, such blinkered thinking, and confinement to a limited set of goodthink far afield from anything they could paint as similar to 1984, is the very rigidly-controlled result those people, who prematurely shutdown debate by invoking 1984, pretend to be against!
My only failing here is conveying this to you clearly. I'm sorry.
It's a really, really good piece of work. I hope you keep making tutorials.
I was impressed with the high ratio of useful content to time spent, and how the full tutorial only seemed to take 10 - 20 minutes.
I'm a 6 or 7 year vim veteran, and your tutorial taught me I could combine numbers with commands. I didn't know that!
For anyone reading and scoffing, please don't think I'm some vimless noob, I know %s/regex/replacement/g visual block selection and edit mode ( ctrl-shift-v, cursor, shift-i, double esc ), split mode :sp, and so on, but I never knew about the numbers with commands, nor about shift-X for left of cursor delete.
So even as someone experienced in vim ( and who codes in vim for everything ), this has improved my productivity!
Thank you so much, a great piece of work. Hope you keep making more tutorials on topics.
Yes, being part of the team is one achievement, being leader of the team is another achievement on top of that.
Sorry there's not "participation prizes" for everybody, but there are concrete important differences between being team member and team leader, as much as some seem to want to delude themselves otherwise and give themselves the "consolation prize" of feeling good, instead of getting the result (being the PI/project lead and getting the Nobel) they wanted.
Zero sympathy for the people who would want to Nobel, now trying to diminish the achievements of those who won the Nobel, just to console themselves. Everyone knows how science works. There are teams and PIs and projects and project leaders. Instead of crying that the reality is "unfair" if the complainers actually cared enough about winning, they would have tried to position their careers in such a way that they were competitive. To pretend you were disserviced when you know how it works is disempowering your own potential to have done better, and also really disrespectful to diminish the importance of Nobel recognition, to people who contribute to winning those prizes.
TL;DR - Looking at the group complaining about not being recognized, all I see is a bunch of sore losers, inventing disempowering reasons to console themselves, instead of inventing results for themselves. Take personal responsibility, be inspired by the achievements of others, these traits will help you win.
I see nothing wrong with recognising the project leaders.
If you think, however, that the "sore losers" want to change the rules of the game solely in order to give themselves a better chance of winning, then there's something missing in your understanding of humans. People like fairness
I understand if you feel otherwise, but I see no unfairness in Nobels going only to project leaders and PIs.
I think the sore losers act entitled to something they didn't earn. I don't think that means I'm missing something about humans. Why would you want to suggest that? Your argument ought to stand on its own not by pretending I'm less. That's not nice. Nor kind. But, look, I am missing many many things in my understanding and experience about humans, and life, and every topic, because I don't understand anything completely or nearly so. And I've only experienced what I have in my life. I'm okay with that.
If you think people prefer fairness, then maybe you didn't face what I did, or maybe you just reacted differently (and if you did then you better teach me how!). I learned people prefer themselves, to fairness, and will cooperate or cheat as either pays off.
I'm no better than that. Let me show you: If you don't think the same way as me, then clearly there is something missing about your understanding of humanity, or your experience. See? I like to cheat, too. When it pays off. Or maybe it's fair to give like you get? What do you think, given that you said there's something missing in my understanding, was that comment fair and justified?
My view is both of us are missing many things about understanding and experience, and if we think differently it's just because we had different experiences and reactions. There's not one true way. And I think that's fine. Diversity right?
So if we can put all that nastiness behind us, what's our common ground, how do you think we ought to make the Nobel prizes more fair and still have them be effective? Do you think we ought to preserve, dismantle or alter the hierarchies and institutions that have worked for science? And do you think we can agree that "fairness" is not a universal good, and that in this case we have (possibly competing) interests such as progress, or effectiveness?
Just come out at the start honestly and say, "All 3 billion accounts affected at Yahoo", or whatever.
I feel angry when I see the numbers gradually going up, I think one reason is because I see it like they're trying to dupe us, or "cook the frog slowly".
I understand they have to protect "shock" to their stock price, or reputation, or prevent panic, but honesty is still valuable, right?
When you have a natural disaster, surely there are experts who have already mapped out such situations and they can say, roughly 20,000 homes will be destroyed in an event like this. Wouldn't it be good to start off at a big estimate and then revise down?
I hate to think this is to some extent driven my the media's need to "drip drip" out a story, instead of giving people the truth.
The form is just a mailto form to test how mailto links are handled in your browser / setup.
The real purpose is to use the bookmarklet at the bottom of the page on GMail.
The real question is why didn't I just change it and make it more clear? I don't know. I like mailto / protocol forms. They're pretty cool. Sending data from browser to almost anywhere, not just HTTP POST and GET. I really like that. One reason is it signals the vast affects you can have with something so simple as plain old HTML.
Ok, I'll make the font-size of the Bookmarklet bigger. Done
Edit: I also noticed the Runkit site is slow sometimes. Here is a CodePen version in case anyone needs it: https://codepen.io/dosy/full/aLMOBQ