> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]
So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
I actually think you are more possibly to make mistakes in R than in Excel. Because in Excel you always see the results directly,
and you can even easily catch an anomaly in a single cell.
But in R it takes one more step to see the results, and you probably won't see results of all the rows directly.
So you think all Google needs to do is just filtering out websites blocked by the Chinese government? Really?
You have a underlying lack of understanding how censorship works. They don't just block websites. The Chinese government wants to filtering out results they don't like on accessible websites.
This number does not mean much. In the old days, more Chinese students rely on full scholarship to study in the US. Now, more and more rich Chinese kids (mostly come with very poor academic background) can study in the US.
So the overall number does not reflect "brain drain", because not all international students can be counted in "global talent". A more meaningful number should only count those graduated from good universities, or having scholarship etc.
> If you're better at writing/composing dplyr, you can often make up the speed difference between the two in terms of the savings in time spent writing and reading code.
dplyr syntax is definitely more concise and readable than base R, but comparing to data.table I don't think it has any advantage in terms of saving time writing or reading code.
"cherry picked"? There is no doubt that data.table is generally way faster than dplyr, unless you cherry pick a few use cases.
The problem is that dplyr is much slower than data.table and RStudio is promoting tidyverse too much to make the slower choice a default for many users.
"cows the population into authoritarian submission" ? I don't see this happening at all. There have been countless protests against the Trump administration, and the main stream media has being criticizing the Trump administration every single day. Please give me an example supports your projection.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food?
And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
Your assumption that AI should be compared to average human driver is simply wrong. There are all sorts of human drivers, some of them drive under influence, some have slow reaction, some have terrible cars. Why should AI be compared to any of those?
When we use automatic vehicle, we assume it to be a reliable driver, not a random person who could be a bad driver.
So please stop comparing to average human drivers.
It's a bs comparison. The Chinese government surveillance is purely for dictatorship, and they do put political opponents and human rights lawyers in jail at a massive scale. The NSA surveillance is mostly for legitimate security reasons and is under restrict scrutiny.
> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]