It probably depends on the bank, but setting one's overdraft limit to zero doesn't necessarily help and may actually make things worse: some payments may still go through even if you don't have the funds, putting you in unauthorised overdraft, which tends to have a high daily fee.
Huh, I didn't know how much I needed a "todo" type until now. So often I'll be defining a packet sumtype, or a collection, and not have created the type yet, so just use ubyte, or Object, or whatever. Having an explicit "todo" type would be amazing in other languages.
The problem is compounded with NPM though thanks to lifecycle scripts: yes, any and all package managers create a risk of supply-chain attack, but NPM makes it dangerous to merely open a project up in an IDE.
> but NPM makes it dangerous to merely open a project up in an IDE.
It does not. Opening a project in an IDE has always been dangerous because there are about a thousand language server and analysis tools that run in the background. This is why IDEs ask you whether you trust the contents of a repository.
An even if some automated background execution initiated by the IDE doesn't get you, running `npm run test` 15 seconds later will.
It is the same for Crates.io and PyPI they also supply scripts without asking the user so opening an IDE will run them. For PyPI you need to even execute scripts to discover the dependencies!
That's a good point. For me it's getting people to realize they need to take up practice that help minimize these things. It's kinda us and them problem.
We need to ensure we don't just blindly install the latest, patch every CVE by just bumping everything to the latest even if the vulnerability has nothing to do with their system or use of said library.
We should have rules that we install the latest that's older than three days.
We should be running "npm audit" and other stuff like Trivy.
The two main points are that wasm is entirely sandboxed and that it's designed to be streamed, and to start up very quickly. The official Java youtube channel coincidentally posted this two days ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy0KyGLrbJo - which includes some interesting details.
Sorry, different person here, why does "sleeping at a train station" imply "setting up a queen bed in the middle of their lane on the highway" or anything of the sort?
People use a train station for travel. We don't allow people to sleep blocking a road, because that would obstruct travel, even though a road is a public space. Likewise, we shouldn't allow people to sleep in a train station where they'll obstruct travel, even though it's a public space.
I agree that the two aren't exactly the same, but public transport users have a right to safe, comfortable, unobstructed travel. There's a difference between preventing a class of people from using public transport to travel, vs preventing everyone from using public transport to sleep.
I also note that the case of long distance travel is an exception, because you might legitimately need to sleep at a station between legs. I'm talking about people who sleep in train stations with no intent of travelling anywhere.
Sorry, I'm still failing to see how someone rough-sleeping on a bench is in anyway comparable to blocking a road and obstructing travel. The actual equivalent would be laying across the track... which is not what's happening. I have seen disturbing images of places who so acutely fail to support their homeless populations that they have no other choice than to sleep in the roads, but even then they're up against the curb, not actually blocking the road.
At this point, I'm beginning to think you consider the mere presence of a rough-sleeper at a train station to be blocking the use of that train station, regardless of what it is they're actually doing.
It's morbidly interesting to watch public discourse on what is and isn't considered a solely-parental responsibility. For example, we seem to have more or less accepted that comprehensive sex education should be taught in school (thank goodness), in part because it cannot be assumed that all children have a parent or guardian who can or will teach them these things. And yet this same consideration barely comes up when discussing internet safety.
Ditto, but also the so-called "Free Speech Bill" advocated by the publisher which explicitly attempts to import America-style free speech into the country as law. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be something Parliament is entertaining, at least not yet.
The biggest issue might be the false belief that it’s superior to others or that the USA is somehow “more free” than other democracies. That’s propaganda, and has precipitated the erosion of freedoms in the USA.
As just one example of the failures of “america-style free speech”: Defending that corporations making large donations to political candidates is free speech. Talk about an incentive to corruption.
Done? I'm having a hard time seeing how not jailing people for objectionable tweets led to the election of Trump (which I'm assuming you're referring to). USA has many deep problems in their politics and if you haven't noticed, have been waging unjust wars for almost their entire history. The recent events are nothing more than a continuation of how it's always been going. If you want to attribute that to free speech, sure, but I'm not seeing the causation honestly.
This is where the propaganda surrounding American-style free speech clashes with reality. Many people assume it protects all speech unless it's incitement to imminent lawless action, "fighting words", etc. But that is simply not the case. This is in large part due to how American law doesn't do what it says. Read their First Amendment, actually read it: it's a limitation on Congress. It's become much, much more than that because their Supreme Court is a de facto legislative body.
This is how you get the Red Scare; that money is speech (Buckley v. Valeo); that legal entities are people with free speech and thus campaign donations cannot be restricted (Citizens United v. FEC); that retaliatory arrests for speech are fine so long as there's probable cause for something else (Nieves v. Bartlett); that therapists have a right to convert their underage gay clients (Chiles v. Salazar); etc. Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect?
The whole "objectionable tweets" thing is so overplayed too. British pundits like to wax poetic about the apparent persecution of people for political speech, and the "political speech" is, for example, Lucy Connolly calling for the burning down of a hotel building housing asylum seekers.
The biggest sufferers under UK speech restrictions are not tweeters, it's protesters, and yet the examples are always tweeters. Isn't that interesting?
Not really, you're just naming a shopping list of examples of what I mentioned earlier: "USA has many deep problems in their politics", with a very tenuous connection to the laws on speech.
> Did you not hear about Mahmoud Khalil? Or Alex Pretti? Ect?
I did hear about that, why are you assuming I didn't? Can you explain the connection to the issue at hand though, because I'm not seeing it.
I chose the tweets example because it's one of the more ridiculous examples, but I could just as well have named Palestine Action or numerous other examples from other european countries. What's "interesting" about it?
Isn't it "interesting" how you're trying very hard to paint a certain picture of the discussion?
Okay, so let me make the question plain: what would American-style freedom of speech fix for the UK that isn't also a problem in the US despite having said freedom of speech.
If you read my original comment ("actually read it") you'll see I was simply stating that, in my opinion, it is better to not have ridiculous archaic laws on speech than to have them. What problem does having the restrictions on speech that are currently in place in the UK solve?
Are you claiming the problems in the USA that you mentioned are because of or despite having freedom of speech? You earlier seemed to claim that e.g. the jailing of activists was because of the free speech laws (the "this is how you get" line). So which one is it?
LOL. At least I'm intellectually honest about my "mere ideological preference" for not restricting speech, instead of trying to somehow construe that free speech is the cause of all the evils in the world.
I just think it's incredibly funny how you assert you're being intellectually honest and then in the same breath do something incredibly intellectually dishonest. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.
But the US does jail people for posting objectionable content, the FBI surveil people posting extreme and objectionable stuff on social platforms and it's led to jail time in at least some cases, one that comes to mind is Lucas Nevcherlian
Are those things because of speech? Or would they be worse if America did not have free speech?
Imagine if Trump could outright ban criticism of him or his policies, or if protests against unjust wars could be banned, or if we had UK style libel laws how would the Epstein thing have come out? Everyone who talked about it would have been shut down by lawsuits.
The reason why it would be worse is not because American-style free speech is good actually, but because you fundamentally lack the tools to hold your politicians accountable. Not only do US federal districts contain ~10x more people than UK constituencies (thus your voice is 10x smaller), but the US is suffering extreme jerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has conveniently made unconstitutional to prevent. It's also extraordinarily difficult to remove Presidents.
As for the Epstein point, I cannot say I'm aware of the full saga given that it's been a multiple-decade scandal at this point. But the files were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Translate this to the UK and Parliament passing a law mandating their release would be unquestionable. No lawsuit would survive the briefest scrutiny once Parliament willed it. I also think it's worth mentioning that Prince Andrew, our most prominent associate with Epstein, began facing repercussions for that association in 2019, years before the files were released.
> Imagine if Trump could outright ban criticism of him or his policies
Ummmmmm. He is.
That is to say, anybody _in power_ or any in any position of authority is significantly curtailing their criticism of Trump. If you haven't noticed this by now, then I despair. Frankly it's unimportant what the little guy says about Trump. The little guys speech is 'free', but the moment the little guy is in a position of power, watch the US administration silence him.
EDIT: For the uninitiated, being 'silenced' doesn't mean being carted off to prison. It means the Trump taking away your authority, reputation, career and/or livelihood. That is all that is required.
While I sympathise with the sentiments here, it's just not true, or at least is a gross exaggeration. While IANAL, nor have I read every jurisdiction's laws, I'm fairly certain we have yet to see someone prosecuted for sharing a Netflix password. This place would've been inundated with posts about it.
Also, the EU and other jurisdictions have already passed laws and regulations about dark patterns, and continue to do so. iirc, there are jurisdictions considering laws regarding content algorithms. There are laws regarding certain addictive patterns (remember the whole debacle regarding micro-transactions targeted towards children?). None of this is to say that these things don't still happen, but rather to refute the notion that these patterns are merely frowned upon.
I'm pretty convinced the only reason people care is because it's been memeified, and to be fair, the running gag of someone chugging a bottle of water before giving a lacklustre response to an easy question is pretty funny. But this sudden care for water consumption despite the public's general apathy towards it with regards to literally everything else (mining, livestock, textiles, energy generation, Coca Cola, etc), just seems manufactured.
reply