Have you read through their case? It's pretty weak in my opinion. They seem to think that any war with a high number of casualties and insufficient humanitarian aid counts as genocide. By their standard the US committed "genocide" against Japan in WW2, arguably Germany too.
The person isn’t saying that Germany committed genocide during WW2, which is obviously true, but pointing out that by the above definition of genocide, the US committed genocide against Germany and Japan during WW2.
Their methodology seems really flawed. They cherry picked a thousand instances of wrongly removed content, but how many posts do you think there are about the conflict on Facebook and Instagram? Tens of millions? They have no way of knowing how representative that sample is.
> Human Rights Watch published a call for evidence of online censorship…from the main Human Rights Watch accounts on Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), and TikTok.
I don’t see how HRW can post this in good conscience without acknowledging the huge potential for voluntary response bias in this survey. Pro-Israel voices have been skeptical of HRW’s perceived Anti-Israel bias[1] for over a decade. They are not going to be following or engaging with HRW accounts, and their voices are most likely fewer in number overall[2]. The fact that 1,049 of the 1,050 comments submitted for HRW’s review were Pro-Palestine should be a red flag, not the core piece of evidence.
Exactly. Whatever your opinions on Israel and Gaza, putting out a report so cherry-picked on such a small, unrepresentative sample only serves to show HRW's biases.
I think this report actually demonstrates the anti-Israel bias HRW has been accused of. HRW points to the 9,500 content takedown requests that Israel has made as one of "four underlying, systemic factors that contributed to the [pro-Palestine] censorship." But knowing that a single Reddit post can receive more than 9,500 comments within a day[1], and that some percentage of the takedown requests likely relate to posts that threaten operational secrecy or the right to privacy of victimized Israelis, leads me to the exact opposite conclusion: that Israel's takedown requests are neither intended to censor pro-Palestine voices nor, if that were the intent, large enough in number to have an impact. Since the report provides no context for the numbers it reports makes me think the authors are more interested in pushing the idea that Israel controls the online narrative than they are in understanding what is actually happening on these platforms.
What bothers me about this isn't that he was committed to a "hospital" (read: jail for mentally ill people).
What bothers me is that the sentence is indefinite. The judge can give him a life sentence for what wouldn't normally justify a life sentence because he's calling it "medicine". The hospital commitment shouldn't be able to last longer than the sentence he would receive if he was neurotypical.
It's pretty simple actually. US schools are run at the local level, not the national level. So different school districts (a district is usually the size of a town or county) get different amounts of funding.
We wrote host (and a bit of embedded) image processing pipeline software. Color correction, distortion correction, demosaicing, etc.
Also, a fair bit of device control stuff.
[EDIT] Oh, I just realized that you meant what kind of manager stuff.
It's a bit complicated, but, TL;DR, I insisted on treating each of my team as an individual. I learned about them, understood their personal priorities, learned what type of coding they were best suited for, got them involved in as much of the lifetime of the project as possible (not a little silo).
I also did not burn them out. I actually did stuff that the company HR people wouldn't like, like let them flex hours, and gave them slack, when they were going through personal stuff.
I also never lied to them; or to my bosses. It's entirely possible to keep secrets, without lying.
This would not work for many teams. I was fortunate, for having the types of employees that I did, and my company basically supported me, and gave me a fair bit of agency.
For Android development SO is pretty useless. I often find answers on there from <=2015. That's when Android 6 came out, its way too old to be relevant. But if you try to re-ask the same question they mark it as a duplicate.
I've found that SO varies a lot by tech/language. In my experience, the C++ and JS subworlds are pretty brutal. C# is middle-of-the-road when it comes to culture. Clojure is very friendly and welcoming, but obviously more niche. This may explain why folks have different experiences on the same site.
I agree. Rust is the worse by far in my experience. There's a couple of really prolific people on there (Shepmaster and Stargateur) who treat it as their personal fiefdom. Shepmaster does provide a ton of high quality answers but I don't think that gives them the right to be so unfriendly.
Kind of ironic considering how the Rust community prides itself so much on being welcoming.
It's the top result for "case insensitive string comparison in C++". It has 372 votes and a ton of useful high quality answers. But it was closed 5 years ago for being "opinion based". Presumably because the author made the foolish mistake of asking for the best way to do it, rather than just a way to do it.
I don't see how anyone could defend that.
That's not cherry picked, and actually the situation is worse than it might seem to a casual observer because when you do occasionally manage to reopen a question (quite difficult) it leaves no evidence that it was ever closed.
That's one of common failure modes for SO. When people ask for "best", they actually mean tell me the options, and the reasons to choose them, and their advantages and problems. It's hugely helpful. But moderators see "best", and automatically close it as "opinion" because there's no objective best. But that isn't the point of it!
So the author made a foolish mistake of not reading the site's rules? I know, I know, who does that? I might be one of very few… Just like I might be one of very few who actually take their time when asking a question, showing respect to anyone who might spend some time answering…
The question doesn't show research effort, it's just two sentences. Sometimes that's all it takes, but if you add a requirement "without converting to lower/upper case", I think it should come with an explanation? I often encounter questions like that "How do I drive my car without using a steering wheel?" - and upon a confrontation I usually hear "well just for fun" or a similar answer - SO is a bad place to ask questions like that. If you're e.g. interested in performance, describe your situation, paste your current code and explain how you're concerned about the efficiency of your current approach.
Also originally the post wasn't not even properly written… Just a low quality post, so why bother improving a question (editing away the "best") that is so bad to begin with, especially as that doesn't guarantee you will avoid the critique (instead of critique of bad moderators who close a question, I would be reading about bad moderators that modify a question changing its meaning).
As I hinted at the beginning, we might be from different worlds: it's beyond my understanding how you could think of pointing out the example is not cherry picked, as if it was some beautiful post, with images, thoroughly explaining the issue, perhaps even addressing (preemptively or as an edit) the "opinion-based" flag, and yet was unfairly closed. Meanwhile it's shit. The revision history doesn't show any real OP's effort to fix the question, other than that meta exists to discuss such things, and if you're not satisfied with answers, you can write a real question describing your case.
So we might be from different worlds, and I'm happy SO/SE exist, because I find them, and their policies - for the most part - useful. You don't, and it's fine, you can use the alternatives.
> when you do occasionally manage to reopen a question (quite difficult) it leaves no evidence that it was ever closed.
Exactly, there are 0 cards that would give cash back equivalent to what I've spent. I suspect it's like $100,000-$150,000. So being conservative, it's a 5% 'cash' back card.
