HackerLangs
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

jfindper

no profile record

comments

jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
[flagged]
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>You can have the book at school, but the school library won't have it.

False.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
The books on this list are not considered banned because of decisions made by a librarian figuring out how to fill their limited space.

Even if the librarian (or in some cases, even if the school district) wants to place the book on the shelves, they are not allowed to.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>The school won't kick you out for having the book, but they won't buy it.

You keep saying this all over this thread, can you please tell me how you are reaching this conclusion?

I have linked you to at least one entire state (covering 40+ school districts) where what you are saying is completely false.

Typically, if a school bans something, it also means that the children are not allowed to bring the banned thing onto the school premises.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>You can have it with you, but it won't be available in the school library.

No, they are "prohibited in the school setting". You cannot bring it with you.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>Yeah this is a strange way to define "banned books".

Pen clearly defines what they consider a ban. Hustler would not meet the definition (hint: it's not because its a magazine).
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
We're talking about an article titled "The Most Banned Books _in U.S. Schools_", I thought the "in U.S. schools" part provided the context, but I suppose not.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>There's state-level law saying it's illegal to own or read some books on this list?

Sorry, I'll edit my comment to be more clear. It is illegal for school libraries to stock it, even if they (teachers, the district, the parents, etc.) want it to be carried.

As a reminder for readers, the title of the article contains "in U.S. schools". It is probably a safe assumption to use that context for the comments in this thread.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>Which books and which law?

The one I was referring to:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2024/08/02/utah-book-b...

"The law, which went into effect July 1, requires that a book be removed from all public schools in the state if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material”"

It seems like there may be more similar laws, per sibling comment.

>Aren't there other books that are banned for legitimate reasons like hate speech and racial hate that aren't included here?

I don't know, and I'm not sure how it is related to my comment. I did not create the list in the article and I don't maintain any other list of banned books.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>I find the dishonesty really off-putting. None of these books are "banned". School libraries don't stock them, they might be removed from curricula, but they are not "banned"

You can look into it, if you're curious! Some of these books are indeed banned from schools (even if they want to stock it!), by state-level law no less! It's not a curation choice.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>A ‘banned book’ is one that you are not allowed to own by the State.

>Your school not stocking books you want is not a ban. It’s the prerogative of the institution to choose how it shapes minds.

At least some of these books are banned from schools by state-level law, not because the school district chose to not stock it.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.

My local bookstore proudly features a table of "banned books" right at the entrance. It's a pretty good advertisement!
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
The fun thing about the computer fraud and abuse act is that just about anything can be made into a federal crime with it!
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
You say your mornings are sacred now; before you made the change did you treat your nights as sacred? Do you think you were always a "morning person", but didn't/couldn't realize it?

Not specific to your comment here, but speaking more generally: I always found it sort of interesting how "morning people" are typically thought of as more productive, less lazy, etc. than "night people". If you say you wake up every morning at 5am people are impressed and assume you are highly motivated, but if you tell people you go to bed at 3am every day people assume you're lazy and maybe depressed. Yet everyone has roughly the same amount of waking hours -- the only thing that should matter is what you're doing with them, not when you have them.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
I'm just pointing out that it's weird to say you changed it for length reasons if you make the new title the same length.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
Super weird to call me out and make a strawman of my comment in a place I'm less likely to see it.

>wanted to have a more positive framing showing the original post really did make decent points

I didn't even criticize this article! I made a meta-comment on the overall discussion, across several platforms, where I said _some_ of the conversation is hyperbolic.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
The thing is, you can do the same statistics without including the user's email address or otherwise directly linking a data point to a specific person.

They may need to retain certain information for laws, but they aren't obligated by law to also share that information with their analytics partners.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>Both for length reasons

The original title is 75 characters. Your title is 74 characters. If it was edited for length reasons, I'm not sure saving 1 character is worth it.
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
tomhow is the other one, and evidently the one who changed the title. apparently for "clickbait" and "length".
jfindper
·7 miesięcy temu·discuss
>ShinyHunters

I had an inkling! They've been on a roll this past year or so.

>This data includes a PornHub Premium member's email address, activity type, location, video URL, video name, keywords associated with the video, and the time the event occurred.

Well, that's pretty fucking wild! Email address & time and location sent to a 3rd party, nice! Absolutely no reason for that, of course. Especially considering these are paying customers!

I guess somewhat notably is Mixpanel denying that it's coming from their November breach. They have less incentive to lie in this case, given that they've already admitted to being breached, and (presumably) their systems & logs have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb to identify all affected parties:

>"The data was last accessed by a legitimate employee account at Pornhub’s parent company in 2023. If this data is in the hands of an unauthorized party, we do not believe that is the result of a security incident at Mixpanel."