You mean they might be committing acts of violence in the pursuit of political aims? You mean 'terrorism'? Should we really validate terrorism as a means of political protest?
I mean, there is an argument to be made there. If people are lashing out violently, they've probably run out of non-violent options and that's something that should be addressed. But I think it sets a horrible precedent to allow violence to shape political discussion.
There are only two conditions for entrapment - government inducement of the crime, and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. [1] And I think this qualifies on both counts. The students were looking to get into the US, but the government pushed this visa mill on them indirectly, via the brokers (who wouldn't have had a dual-accredited fake university to pitch without the government's aid). Had these brokers not reached out to these students, it's unlikely that they would have sought out the same illegal method to enter the country. (This is assuming the brokers reached out the students, and not the other way round).
I think there must be a fundamental difference in the way Americans view privacy vs how Europeans view privacy.
To me, 'privacy' means that my actions performed at home (or in other places where I can reasonably assume to be alone or in private company) should not be under the scrutiny of others.
I should have the right to act how I want in public as well, so long as my actions do not affect other people. But I don't see how I could reasonably expect to have privacy in that case.
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.
The reason someone's search results are considered 'objectionable' is because they consider those results private. The private citizen, in the case, is the censor. The french government is just the enforcing body behind that censorship.
I'm not getting why this is supposed to be impressive. It just looks like they lined up several tiny motors and used a small gear ratio. There's very little ant-like cooperation.
This is such a risky game to play. Yes, I took a similar approach to HS with similar results. But I remember competing with another student to see who could do the best in a class without opening their book. I passed. I didn't do as well as I could have, but I passed. He wasn't so fortunate. By the time he accepted that he was behind, it was too late for him to save his grade. What I'm saying is, students should be taught which homework to do, not to just to skip it.
That hypothesis isn't falsifiable. We know "X effects Y" from experimental result. You're asking for proof that "X and only X effects Y", which is the same as asking for "There does not exist some X' that effects Y" where the set of X' is unbounded. No, that's not testable and doesn't need to be.
Just like we didn't need to know about the X' of Einstein's equations to know that the X gravity was the primary force holding you to the ground.
There very well may be an X' that effects observable biological features other than evolution, but that X' needs to be tested on an individual basis. So while it's productive to hypothesize an X' and test it, there's not much we can do to rule out all X' as a class.
I feel like this post misses the point of the whole "technical debt" analogy. They way the author talks, it seams like their org. uses it as a catch-all term for complaining about the code base. But that's never been the point of the term.
"Technical debt" is the justification for process and development decisions that require more time up-front but will save time in the long run (especially as a term to communicate this to non-technical management). It only comes into play when you're talking relatively about two or more different choices.
Just as an example: when deciding to move ahead with less testing or to move more slowly and write unit tests for every function, you should consider the first to come with more technical debt. That doesn't mean it's the wrong decision, it just means that it should be a factor in your thought process.
I think your definition of "thinking" is a bit too narrow. Certainly, there are humans with mental conditions which prevent them from communicating with "articulate language" (autism, aphasia, etc). Yet there's little doubt that they can still "think".
Yes, there's a danger of personifying animals. But there's also a tendency for us to picture ourselves as special (Geocentrism being the obvious example).
This is how I felt about the Math GRE. On the practice test, when I gave myself plenty of time to think, I was able to answer almost every question correctly. But on the real timed test, I scored very poorly. They gave you so little time to solve the problem there was no "thinking" involved, it was all rote algorithmic manipulation.
Understanding that different people have a different perspective on the world (or at least, grasping that on a gut level) is a key milestone in developmental psychology that normally happens as a very young child (<5yo). This is the first time that this has been definitively tied to language. 30yo's without adequate language to express these concepts were unable to understand them - not just express them.