Safe Rust solves the problem of memory safety (assuming that any unsafe code is correct). Unsafe Rust continues to be potentially memory unsafe. That is equivalent to other memory safe languages like Java (which is memory safe under the assumption that the JVM has no memory safety bugs and any JNI code is correct), and a very large improvement over C and C++.
IMO, anybody who takes Charles Murray seriously needs to be hit upside the head with a hardcover of Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, which exposed race-and-IQ studies for the racist bullshit they are in the 1970s, years before the publication of The Bell Curve.
Its incredibly socially awkward to float the idea that you could judge someone’s intelligence by their physical features and claim some objective validity. This is quite unfortunate because in my opinion IQ is pseudoscience and intelligence is socially constructed, so its not going to be possible to substantiate that view. But since we can’t even propose such an idea for purposes of argument without the danger of social sanction, those ideas are never properly debunked.
If UBI is racist, then it seems to me that literally everything is racist.
You cannot change a government policy without somehow, somewhere affecting some minority. If we are going to going to call that racism, then we really cannot even have policy discussions.
Obviously Murray is a particularly controversial person, but UBI is obtaining small amounts of broad support in general.
I guess it just feels a bit exhausting to me. While I understand the reasoning behind what you wrote (and it's logical and internally consistent), I also feel one could just as reasonably make the case that not supporting UBI is racist.
I mean, he supported Bernie in the primaries. He's not David Brooks or whatever, he's pretty firmly on the left hand side of American politics. Like, his last book was essentially an extended argument for throwing away all immigration restrictions.
The moment you lose your key, WebAuthN becomes terrible and the UX is atrocious. You may literally have to go to an office (in the middle of a pandemic!) to restore access to your account.
This is bananas. We absolutely should not be recommending them to normal people until security researchers come to their senses and fix this problem.
Nonono. We absolutely should recommend having at least 2. See also: car keys, house keys, any other physical lock you can get comes with at least 2 keys.
The default product sold should be a two key bundle.
If a set of ideas can destabilize a racist, colonial power which as of 2021 still hasn't paid reparations to Haiti, that seems like a problem with the colonial power, not the ideas. The French republic deserves to be destabilized a bit.
"CARICOM, an organization of Caribbean countries that included Haiti, called for a United Nations investigation into Aristide's removal, but were reportedly pressured by the U.S. and France to drop their request"
Chinese imperialism isn't better or worse than European imperialism. Hong Kong would be best off as an independent, liberal democracy, under no one's "rule".
Theoretically yes, in practice, small states bordering major powers have trouble keeping their sovereignty. At the very least they need to enter some mutual defence alliances.
Liberal gender and sexual norms are very clearly better for humanity and it is a moral imperative that the rest of the world adopt them. Social conservatism of the sort practiced in most of the world, including but not remotely limited to the Muslim world, is incompatible with basic human rights and freedoms. To be very clear: social conservatism is bad and social liberalism is good.
As someone not from the west, I hold these beliefs very firmly. The abuse and oppression I saw growing up was the inevitable result of patriarchal culture. Traditional gender and sexual norms are not worth saving. I hope some day they're seen in the same light we see feudalism or chattel slavery today.
So, yes, in that sense "born that way" is a compromise with bigots.
There is no reason to treat "social liberalism" as practiced in western countries in 2020 as some inextricable bundle, where each change must be considered "progress" independently. For example, while the sexual revolution tries to ride the coat tails of equal legal rights for women, there is no reason a society can't have equal rights for women without embracing the premises of the sexual revolution. (Don’t forget that the sexual revolution has freed men to do a lot of socially harmful things that burden and hurt women.) Even in the west, it is far from the consensus view that the sexual revolution was a good thing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/07/sex-re.... Can a society have equal rights without, for example, the epidemic of fatherlessness that plagues the United States?
It’s impossible to deny that socially liberal societies today aren’t doing a great job at one of the fundamental functions of a society: raising children. North America and Western Europe suffer from birth rates so low they’d soon cease to exist if it wasn’t for immigrants from socially conservative countries (Latinos in America, Muslims in Europe).
The low rates of physical teenage sex in the west today are a result of a generation of social liberalism along with technological progress (enabling virtual means to explore one's sexuality). Social liberalism means having a healthy attitude towards sex and gender and being able to talk about them freely, not treating them as taboo subjects.
Low birth rates in the US and EU are a direct result of socially conservative public policy, where having kids generally means one's standard of living goes down. France has the best child support and consequently the highest birth rates in the EU.
> Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.
In Bangladesh, where I'm from, it's taken for granted that getting married, going to mosque, and having kids is the way to a good and happy life. Yes, Bangladeshis are backwards people in many ways. But maybe they’re not wrong about everything. Maybe in this area, Bangladeshis know something about being human that social liberals have talked Americans into forgetting?
Oh wow, the people that are are happy with things as they are and want to "conserve" those things are happier than the people that are downtrodden under the current system and thus want to change it.
