You don't hear about it so much (unless you go looking) because Texas isn't a sanctuary state. Texas law enforcement supports and assists ICE, and Texas government officials don't encourage protests (and would tell protesters, if asked, not to obstruct and not to resist arrest). So there is no major conflict, minimal protest, and essentially no news coverage.
Minnesota government officials, on the other hand, seem to be interpreting 10A well beyond any precedent I ever heard of, and don't seem particularly interested in the consequences of the Supremacy Clause. In fact they have repeatedly falsely claimed that ICE are "not real law enforcement".
> I think there very much is. For example, how do we restore law and order in our cities when a lawless federal executive is Hell-bent on creating chaos?
Your use of this rhetoric is not consistent with having a productive conversation.
Here come the usual disruptors, with their hecklers' veto...
Sorry, I'm not looking to get sucked into going around in circles with your gaslit cinematic universe, again. If you want some written material to rail against, go get yourself copies of the US Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Some Canadian bookstore must still have copies of those, right? You can even take a black marker and scribble out everything you don't like.
> do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs?
When I see a submission like the current one, I get the impression just from the title that the OP doesn't believe it.
> abuse flags in the following sense: they only ever flag political stories, and their flags are always aligned with the same political position.
One problem I see with this logic is that nowadays, the political submissions are overwhelmingly aligned with the positions of one "side" of specifically American politics.
FWIW, I flag submissions like this one because I would flag ideologically reversed ones (in this case, e.g. calling the Democrats communists or something like that) if they ever actually came up. But more importantly, I flag them because they're trying to establish the use of a highly subjective and derogatory term as fact.
And because in practice, dissent from TFA's point of view is at best walking a tightrope, and invariably the comment section fills with things that I can't see as kind or insightful at all, and which sneers and fulminates (or at least exhibits aggrieved diatribe) quite a bit.
This submission itself provides ample evidence. The comments are full of people throwing around language like "gestapo", "Nazi", "fascist" etc. in reference not even just to the Trump "regime", but to Republican voters, ordinary citizens making up roughly half the voting public. Engaging in very clear "with us or against us" rhetoric and writing off any opposition as inherently evil. As a more concrete example of dissent being suppressed, I just vouched for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46758137 which is clearly not objectionable.
I am a Canadian who has only ever voted for left-wing parties, but I still literally get called a Nazi because I suppose that terms like "fascist" (and, for that matter, "execution" and "genocide") aren't appropriate to apply to groups (respectively, actions/events) that specific political groups in the US want to apply them to, or because I point out the legal basis for justifying an LEO's use of lethal force, etc.
> Good to hear you're onboard with prosecuting Federal agents pretending to have local traffic enforcement powers and murdering citizens during illegal traffic stops.
Approaching a vehicle that is already stopped, perpendicular to traffic, initially to tell the driver to move and then to make an arrest for obstruction of justice, is not a "traffic stop", and the agents in question therefore did not in any way "pretend to have local traffic enforcement powers". ICE are legally entitled to require protesters to get out of their way. That's a consequence of them being federal LEO, and of federal law prohibiting everyone from obstructing LEO (which includes things like physically shielding others from arrest, impeding their movement towards whatever place they need to get to to do their job, etc.). Protesting and asserting 1A rights is not a defense to the charge of obstruction of justice.
(I'm accustomed to seeing Reason accused of leaning right, so it's a little disorienting to see all of this.)
> And since the Trump administration's deportation campaign began last year, DHS officials have repeatedly insisted that following and recording federal immigration agents in public is a violation of a federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or impede law enforcement officers.
Following the link:
> In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: "That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
> It's one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public.
Reading the rest of the link, they don't even attempt to evidence "DHS officials" making the same claim any other time than that, or that they actually have such policy; so they simply have not established that DHS "repeatedly insists" any such thing. The claim seems to be simply based on Reason's own interpretation that the threats and detentions (and arrests) are "for" the mere act of recording.
But I have now been shown very many videos where people claim that a protestor was subjected to force and/or arrest "for" a mere exercise of free speech, and in every single case it has been abundantly clear to me that the subject was obviously also doing something clearly obstructive that was obviously the actual cause of action. Sometimes this even clearly includes people who aren't being obstructive, being completely left alone as they say hateful things (as is, indeed, their 1A right).
Klippenstein's video, of course, doesn't show a clear obstruction. But it also doesn't show anywhere near enough context to establish the assertion that the person being written up was a "legal observer". Notably, it shows the officer being asked whether the write-up is "for recording you?", but doesn't show a clear response. It's cut to imply that the woman is being "now considered a domestic terrorist" for the simple act of having a cell phone out recording, but it gives no reason to actually believe that this is the case.
Meanwhile, we don't get to see any evidence of the email chain, can't verify the "unnamed spokesperson" and, crucially, can't verify the actual text of the question asked. I hope I don't have to explain how following someone around could result in a physical obstruction.
> And you definitely don't care how a payments network point of sale terminal and your bank talk to each other... Good software is invisible.
> ...
> Are you keeping up with security updates? Will you leak all my data? Do I trust you? Can I rely on you?
IMO, if the answers to those questions matter to you, then you damn well should care how it works. Because even if you aren't sufficiently technically minded to audit the system, having someone be able to describe it to you coherently is an important starting point in building that trust and having reason to believe that security and privacy will work as advertised.
Nope, it's value semantics (unlike Python), the references are just an internal optimization. Implicit copies happen when a list/dict with more than one reference is mutated.
This applies everywhere, and it fundamentally wouldn't be possible for just function calls.
> needless cost
Are you comparing to a language with mutable references or a our functional language? A language with mutable references will of course be faster, but this is more intended as an alternative to pure functional languages (since functions are referentially transparent).
In this case, the cost of the indirection is approximately zero (relative to the cost of just doing reference counting), since passing a reference just requires a bump to the refcount. And most of the time the refcount increments are skipped by "moving" instead of copying the reference.
I'm comparing to the same language implemented without the supposed internal optimization, according to my understanding of what you're doing.
But I think at this point I'd have to read and analyze the code to have a proper understanding.
... Although granting that you already have paid the cost of reference-counting GC (and, I assume, per-object allocation), it probably is indeed insignificant. And special-casing where the reference count == 1 is also kinda neat. (E.g. CPython doesn't "move references" per se if I'm thinking clearly; but it does detect cases where it can safely mutate the underlying implementation of a type that's "immutable" from the perspective of language syntax.)
He's likely referencing that you would need to use different syntax and style, like re-assigning a variable or chaining calls, like when working with a String in Java.
In C, you can simply mutate the underlying characters. So changing the fifth character in a string is as easy as:
str[4] = 0;
Whereas using the immutable syntax you might have to do something like:
> The public thinks lives are infinitely valuable.
In rhetoric, yes. (At least, except when people are given the opportunity to appear virtuous by claiming that they would sacrifice themselves for others.)
In actions and revealed preferences, not so much.
It would be rather difficult to be a functional human being if one took that principle completely seriously, to its logical conclusion.
I can't recall ever hearing any calls for compulsory public interaction, only calls to stop forbidding various forms of public interaction.
The SHOW UP act was congressional republicans forcing the end of telework for federal workers, not for any rational basis. Teachers in Texas and Florida, where Republicans run things, staff were faced with show up in person (no remote learning) or quit.
ICE has arrested and deported far more people from Texas than Minnesota (e.g. https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-immigration-crac... https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-states-ice-arrest-immigra... https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/im... many other sources can easily be found).
You don't hear about it so much (unless you go looking) because Texas isn't a sanctuary state. Texas law enforcement supports and assists ICE, and Texas government officials don't encourage protests (and would tell protesters, if asked, not to obstruct and not to resist arrest). So there is no major conflict, minimal protest, and essentially no news coverage.
Minnesota government officials, on the other hand, seem to be interpreting 10A well beyond any precedent I ever heard of, and don't seem particularly interested in the consequences of the Supremacy Clause. In fact they have repeatedly falsely claimed that ICE are "not real law enforcement".
reply