> I also made a bit of a splash because I came to the conference with a MacBook
That reminds me of going to a .NET meetup kind of thing at the Microsoft office in Dallas once many years ago, and I came in my Mono t-shirt and my Thinkpad with GNOME and Mono stickers on it. Joseph Hill spots me and comes over to introduce himself. His first words were, "You look like a man on a mission!" :)
Joseph was so cool. There was some guy at Microsoft who was hosting the event, and he was kind of a dick. He kept trying to make jokes about Mono, but most of the people at the event didn't have any idea what Mono was so the only people who knew what he was talking about were me and Joseph.
I feel like the rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence are not really what this is all about. The US isn't saying you can't write derogatory things about it online, so it's not denying any rights. But non-citizens don't automatically have a right to enter the country, correct?
spot on: the right to enter a countries borders is not granted to all individuals. The right to free speech may be, but it comes with a cost if you say things people don't like. You are still free to say them though.
If authorities and those with power will apply a "cost" to you for doing an action, you do not have freedom to do that action. This is what freedom means.
Otherwise, what does it mean to you? Is your view that simply being physically capable of doing something means you're 'free' to do it?
Do you think people in North Korea have freedom of speech? After all, they can say whatever they like. It just comes with a cost (life in a labor camp).
I dont think it's about threshold. It's about some consequences being ok to apply and some not being ok. But some of the ok ones may actually be bigger than some of the not-ok ones. For instance the love of your life breaking up with you. That's big. But ok. Or a $20 fine. That's small. But not ok.
> Every possible human action does not have a punishment or a deterrent applied by those with power.
Since every living member of society has some non-zero amount, it would still be the case that free speech is practically impossible, if you set the bar too low. As the chances of that applying to at least 1 person out of 8 billion is pretty close to 100%.
So then the question is, how high exactly is the bar above zero?
Free speech is granted to the people. So probably not. Note right to bear arms is granted to 'people' therefore by deduction if you are barred arms you are not a person. Aliens are not typically considered 'people' in a constitutional context.
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
is semantically different from
> "The right of each person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
A group can have a right in the general sense that is restricted from individuals in that group. Note that this is a different construct than is used in the First Amendment (and I have a hard time believing that the framers took their semantic decisions in drafting these phrases lightly):
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
DC v Heller makes clear the present day interpretation of the people conveys individual right. People is also said in the fourth amendment, surely you're not arguing individuals have no fourth amendment rights.
In the first I'm specifically referring that it says the right is to the people to petition grievances. The wording pretty clearly doesn't prohibit congress from stopping non-people from assembling/petitioning.
If you can't have a gun you are necessarily not a person based on the present day interpretation of the courts. Therefore most aliens are not people and law can prohibit their grievances (derogatory posts perhaps) and assembly and abridge their protection from search and seizure.
Note:
>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Lol you purposefully chopped off the part where some of that was explicitly qualified to 'people' rather than to anyone!
> Lol you purposefully chopped off the part where some of that was explicitly qualified to 'people' rather than to anyone!
You mean the bit after the clause I cited, which applies to a different thing than the freedom of speech?
My objection, to be clear, is your insistence on bending over backwards to justify the assertion that the denial of one right necessarily implies the denial of other rights based on a strange inversion of the idea of "personhood".
My assertion is people are people. If the Constitution says the right is to people then people have the rights if people. If you have no right to bear arms you're not a person and the first contrary to your claim does explicitly tailer congresses limitations on assembly and petitioning to 'people' just as the second tailers to people.
But if the "non-citizens don't automatically have a right to enter the country" logic holds up, then what rules should be used to allow or deny entry?
Would it be okay to deny entry to a foreigner because they're black? Or gay? They don't have a right to enter anyways, so I guess it's okay.
This is really about "how does the negative things they say about the US affect how they'll improve the US by being there, if at all" which is really the general rule for most immigration; how can this person help and improve the country they're entering.
I don't know. This feels really easy to abuse. Like, say I wrote something criticizing China on some issue on facebook, and then China denies a future visitor visa. Is that right? Is that reasonable? Is that good for China?
Likewise, I expect that it is not in the USA's best interest to do this, let alone fair to the person who would immigrate into the the US.
> How is it not in a country's best interest to deny a visa to aliens that hate the country?
Is this meant as a straw man?
When does criticism become hate, and how to do you judge speech anyways. Reminds me of that guy in Hong Kong who was given a huge fine and banned from trading in the HKSAR because he said Evergrande would go insolvent. Obviously a hate crime.
Model 3's system is better than other cars I've owned, but not as good as what I think CarPlay can be. The only advantage of my Model 3 vs the rental cars I've used with CarPlay was that Model 3's screen is bigger and nicer and so the maps look nicer and I can have music info/controls on screen at the same time as maps. But both Apple and Google navigation is a lot better than Tesla's navigation. I also use Apple Music and was initially excited about getting integration into Tesla, but I continue to just use it through my phone instead so it ended up not mattering. The one thing I hate about Tesla's system is the semi-frequent UI changes. A moving car with a touch screen is not the place where I want to have to re-learn some aspect of a UI after I get a system update.
The UI updates essentially once a year to keep up the with massive influx of features that are being added, and keep those features accessible and organized on the available screen real estate.
Basically with Tesla you get the latest model year car software on an ongoing basis, and it’s revolutionary from an owner’s perspective.
The alternative is needing to trade in/buy a whole new model year car to get to enjoy whatever new feature, which is how it always used to work, and is so scammy.
If you don’t want the latest software, you can always choose not the install it, but you would be seriously limiting the performance, comfort, safety and entertainment value of your car.
Most cars don’t get faster, safer, and cheaper to operate after you buy them, but Tesla’s do. The obvious trade-off to getting the latest model year’s software and features is getting the latest model year’s UI as well.
I have a Model 3 right now and like it well enough I guess, but I think next time I get a car my ideal is to get a non-Tesla EV that has CarPlay. My hope was that Tesla has pushed the industry enough to start making competitive EVs so that I don't have to get another Tesla. And I think I would prefer using CarPlay. I've used it a couple times in rental cars and really liked it. The screens are smaller and less nice than Tesla's, but the navigation on Tesla kind of sucks compared to Apple and Google and I think that's more valuable to me.
My wife and I use WeChat because her family lives in China and we want to be able to chat and do video calls with her. If Secretary of Commerce declares that WeChat is illegal that is going to put an enormous strain on my family.
It fits pretty neatly with components in LiveView, so for the sake of the default generators it makes sense to include. It's super simple to remove it and write components however you want though.
The editor is windows only, but you can export for all these platforms, including osx.
A Stride project is just a normal visual studio solution, so you can build the solution on other platforms too, if you don't use the asset compiler, which is also a windows only application.
That reminds me of going to a .NET meetup kind of thing at the Microsoft office in Dallas once many years ago, and I came in my Mono t-shirt and my Thinkpad with GNOME and Mono stickers on it. Joseph Hill spots me and comes over to introduce himself. His first words were, "You look like a man on a mission!" :)
Joseph was so cool. There was some guy at Microsoft who was hosting the event, and he was kind of a dick. He kept trying to make jokes about Mono, but most of the people at the event didn't have any idea what Mono was so the only people who knew what he was talking about were me and Joseph.