How does one reconcile the idea that KiwiFarms is guilty of unspecified crimes that threaten lives and require emergency intervention, but also those alleged crimes aren't urgent enough that authorities would prosecute them? Is that entirely handwaved by calling the whole of U.S. law enforcement "transphobic / homophobic / white supremacist / right-wing"?
As this submission shows, cybercrime is prosecuted in the U.S.
If you want to claim that they do, then you should provide some evidence. Preferably not in the form of circular references to unsourced blog posts/articles.
I assume you are implying "access to all app providers on the phone of their choice". What about those app developers that have chosen not to target a market? For example there are plenty of app developers that are iOS-only, and some that are Android-only. Do you then force them to target both systems? (since the customers deserve it). Would you enforce this on PC developers too? I'd love to have native Microsoft Office apps on my linux laptop. But I'm not holding my breath.
It's worth noting that the @RomanRaminsky Twitter account it refers to was created today and all of its tweets are to throw barbs at the @bitsdigits account.
That sounds like a you problem. Also, you could say "the language" for the oh-so-many times(?) you apparently have to have to refer to it during a programming class.
No because you know what happens? Students snicker and ask insincere questions just so they can say coq in class in front of their friends. They record their professor saying coq and splice it together and upload it to their social media feeds. Female students squirm in their seats and become disengaged, counting down the minutes until the class ends.
It’s the same reason I can’t teach brainfuck. There are 10001 languages worthy of class time and these languages disqualify themselves in my opinion.
How old are your students? I'm truly amazed by what you're saying.
As others mentioned, "bit" means "cock" in French, but by the time you learn what a bit is, you're old enough to not laugh at it anymore. And you surely get to use Coq in your studies when you're older than when you learn about bits.
I mean, in France, laughing at your teacher because he speaks of "bits" (cocks) and you're >16yo would certainly make you look like mentally challenged.
Why are you trying to teach 16 year olds theorem proving? They're are no situations in which that will ever be interesting or useful to them, so it's no surprise they would be bored and distracted.
I teach a class on Programming Languages at a US university as part of an accredited CS program. The curriculum is what it is. I don't control who takes my class, and I don't restrict access to any student as long as they meet the prerequisites. At the beginning of the semester I get a roster, and I teach them the material.
For what it's worth, the 16 year old are usually the better behaved, as they are advanced students from high school who are beyond their peers in ability. They find the material eminently fascinating and are fully engaged. The ones to watch out for are the 21 year olds.
I personally learned Coq at 14. Who are you to decide what's interesting and useful to 16 year olds?
Sure, but that's an issue with those websites, not the law. The law doesn't mandate to have a fullscreen modal that says "We value your privacy" with a big button that allows all cookies and myriad tiny buttons to disallow them individually.
If websites choose to sacrifice usability to be able to fingerprint users, that's on them.
The problem with laws is they never get them right in the first place, and that goes double with anything technology, and then once they are law it is almost impossible to get them changed.
