Catty? “Like a little girl”? The hell is wrong with you people that you’re looking so hard for insult where none is intended? I apologize for being too casual in my assertion that I think you’re bending the work to fit your views instead of explaining why you think his views on tolerance aren’t correct.

Yes, I’m saying he included that statement because it’s the “why”. Suppression of intolerant speech can be justified because it can lead to violence. The violence or incitement thereto isn’t a precondition that justifies suppression in his view, but the end state to be avoided.

I’m not sure what you’re saying by drawing a distinction between the Nazis and the brown shirts or spelling out the party name. I know the Nazis were violent before they had political power.
That doesn’t really have anything to do with what I said.

Read it again. He’s using incitement to violence as a consequence to to be avoided, not as a driving factor.

for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

He goes on:

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

He was writing at the end of WW2. He was saying it would have been fine to stop the Nazis at the start, before they were inciting violence because they couldn’t be reasoned with.
It’s clear you don’t agree with his position , and that’s okay. You can just disagree with him.

Not a direct response, but a response as part of a larger philosophical narrative.

He was a true believer in a society driven by rational discussion and the free exchange of ideas, which was the main point of his work.
As part of describing how he thought society should be run (tldr: we should discuss things, change institutions peacefully, and make small changes that we can actually tell if they worked instead of upending society in the name of an untested ideology) he spent some time describing the edge cases and weaknesses, which is where the quote comes from.

He wrote the work during WW2 after fleeing Germany, so there’s more than a little implied context that people would have at the time of publication. Basically a general vibe of “what the fuck! Let’s not do that again!”

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it’s refusing rational argument that’s a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Further, if you finish the paragraph it becomes clear that the opening statement is anything but a misunderstanding:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

You don’t have to agree with him, you can be partial to rawles, but popper was not vague.

The person who put forward the idea, or gave it a name, was a pretty notable philosopher who was notably in favor of a discourse driven liberal democracy, and against fascism.

He didn’t mean paradox in the sense of “self contradictory and unresolvable” like the liars paradox. He meant it in the sense of “seemingly contradictory”.

In order to have the most tolerant, rational discourse driven society possible there are some things you cannot tolerate, nor engage in discussion with , because if you cannot be persuaded there cannot be rational discussion.

So the paradox was named by a person explaining why you don’t have to listen to Nazis just because you want to be open to new ideas and perspectives.

Coming to the conclusion that it’s not contradictory is agreeing with the argument that it’s okay to just tell Nazis to fuck off.

It’s less common to have a light or crosswalk away from a junction. Usually when you push the button it changes the lights to the crossing sequence on the next cycle so everything keeps flowing, so a pedestrian might hit the button, then wait for traffic to stop, then cross traffic, then a dedicated turn cycle. It can be a bit of time.
The light in question would turn yellow the moment you pushed the button, without integration with the nearby lights. Driver’s usually don’t expect to get stopped after being allowed to pass a red light after only about 100 meters.

In general, there’s too much variation to say the US as a whole doesn’t do some traffic thing. If it exists odd are someone tried using it on a road somewhere.

A cup of drip coffee is 150-200 on average. Multiply based on a pessimistic interpretation, then reduce.

You could also measure UV light absorbtion in the 260-280 nm band and compare to a calibration chart. That seems a lot more excessive than just estimating and working to reduce, as opposed to targeting a specific number.

Yeah, a lot of the time they’re just there because people look for them if they’re not and then they fidget, don’t wait for the signal and dash into traffic.

The town I grew up in, the vast majority didn’t do anything but they gently beeped, and if you pushed the button it would tell you the sign status until it completed the cycle. Helpful for vision impaired people.
There were a few that shifted the traffic lights to a different cycle and otherwise it never did a pedestrian cycle.

There was one though, where pushing the button nearly immediately started a pedestrian cycle.
There was a wide block with an apartment building in the middle on one side, and a grocery store directly across from it. Not long enough that people complained, but enough so that people still trotted across the otherwise busy street a lot. After trying nearly everything else they eventually put a traffic light in the middle of the block that was nearly entirely on demand for the crosswalk button, because almost any delay and the (college student) residents would just dash across.

Watching confused drivers was fun.

Nah, I’m not even willing to say “I hope you suffer from the inability to treat your dead kid like trash”.

I just don’t care about them at all. If they drown in their sorrow and off themselves that’s just the way it is.
My ability to care is pretty much all used up on people who didn’t do it to themselves at the moment.

You’ll have to walk me through what you mean by that. I’m not sure how what I’m hearing you say would improve anything.

But that’s the thing: now you haven’t made an email replacement, you’ve made email more complicated.

If you’re backwards compatible you need a very compelling feature to get people to switch, and using the feature is limited until people switch.
That’s how we added spf, dkim, dmarc and starttls.
The biggest difficulty is managing the layers of compatibility.

Yup.

Crt monitors are the stereotypical "surprise, you just pushed the dead button!” device, but microwaves too.

Their transformers are the bit that kills the most hobbiests though. Crazy high frequency high voltage transformer that chooses not to fuck around when you plop it in your project.

Oh, there have been plenty. The issue though is the classic “make a better standard, and now you have N+1 standards”.
Everything is wrong with SMTP. It’s still in use because it’s supported everywhere. Anything that wants to replace it either needs to entirely replace it in one fell swoop, or it needs to be backwards compatible.

The result is that occasionally a new thing comes up, a handful of people try it but there isn’t critical mass to make other features really useful so it fades.

I went and read the commit descriptions.

Previously it was using whatever cursor the theme had loaded and just scaled it up. Now it references the full set of resources for the theme and picks the appropriate one for the size.

So they went with the most correct third option: defer to the standard set by a more authoritative source. :)

Did you forget we were talking about 3d printers?

You compared the people making fun of the drm mandate to people making fun of car registration because you can build a kit car, implying that building a 3d printer was a nearly insurmountable hurdle.

Being able to trivially bypass the drm is exactly why it’s laughable.

Cars, bikes, or your dislike have nothing to do with the DRM mandate being toothless and stupid.

Okay? What does that have to do with the drm mandate being easy to get around?
Is your point that it’s okay to put unenforceable, easily bypassed restrictions on stuff if you think they’re bad?

I’m not sure honestly sure what your point is, because you went a bit too far with the analogy.

Itty bitty ones, sure. And they take weeks to produce a working vehicle, of substandard quality.

This was about regulating 3d printers, not guns. A diy printer, a new drm printer and an old not-drm printer produce the same quality output.

A diy 3d printer is just as durable as a purchased one.

If your goal is to have an unregistered car, or in this case a drm free printer, the law seems silly when you can get one for cheaper than the “proper” one and have it out together in an afternoon if you have highschool level mechanical aptitude.

Making a full on machine gun is literally one of the original cottage industries. They’re hard to design but the actual fabrication can be so dumbed down that you can make it out of non un-common household tools with minimal skill.

Some of the tricky bits are making the weapon fire slower, so it doesn’t jam or get so hot rounds fire before they’re actually in the chamber. Or just keeps firing because releasing the trigger wasn’t enough to keep the recoil from keeping it going.
If your goal is to give everyone in the UK too young, old or woman to draft a machine gun to make the Germans regret invading, then a horde of cockney 8 year olds with uncontrolled machine guns and poor trigger discipline is certainly a choice.

It more like mocking car registration because every neighborhood has a few people who can build you a car from scratch in a day, the city already has several thousand car factories that don’t require registration, there’s no mechanism to enforce registration, and the cost of building a new car is a few hundred dollars. The motivation for requiring registration is also to stop people from driving full speed into fast food restaurants is custom built murder buggys. Yeah, you don’t want people to do that but it’s not like it really happens all that often.

Building a 3d printer from a kit is different from building one from scratch. It’s basically screwing parts together and plugging colored wires into matching slots.

Yeah, he was the runt of the litter we think, and abandoned by his mother. We pulled him out from under a neighbor’s porch and got him through it, but he always has a bit of a frantic urgency around food time, even for a cat. Our other cat was 100% good with one of those gravity feeders and would just graze over the course of the day and keep himself at a good weight.

We’ve kept the auto feeder around so the one can get five or six smaller meals throughout the day, since he eats so fast a normal portion often causes issues.

It’s basically a dumb alarm clock that drops food in tablespoon increments. Only features I wish it had that it doesn’t is an “I’m nearly empty” sensor that could flash a light, and the ability to sync it’s clock with the radio broadcast time signal, since it drifts waaay more than you would expect and we need to reset the clock every month.