To be fair, programming is basically the art of making the computer do as much as possible with as little typing as possible.

I think this is not helpful, since both are “mixing colour”. I think a more apt analogy would be “shining multiple lights” vs “stacking colour filters”.

To be clear, the accusation is that the mod team is Zionist, and that they consistently moderate all anti-Zionist content.

It’s a Zionist bar not just because there’s a few Zionists, but because the bar owner keeps kicking out the people who cause a ruckus with the Zionists.

1. They had a vote, and the people said strongly that they did not want to see this.
2. Platforming Facism is the best way to spread Facism, and deplatforming Facism is the best way to fight it. Supporting their freedom to speak is in effect the same as supporting the ideology.

Have your tried? Asking someone when there’s nothing visually wrong with you is a pretty good way to cause conflict.

Even if we do this, paternity tests are not guaranteed correct. This has the possibility to cause so much unneeded drama.

The government already knows all our ages, right? They issue our IDs after all. Have the government provide a “yes, this person is over 18” service. There are ways of providing signed files/tokens which don’t contain personal information.

If the government wants to write a law, then I think it’s reasonable they’re also responsible to help with a solution.

Fair, but nuanced rules are difficult to enforce, and somewhat open to interpretation. This leads to people trying to skirt the rules and also good faith posts which break the rules which leads to conflict also.

I think it’s better to keep things as simple as possible, as long as the rule is good enough.

This is why ‘American’ politics are banned, and not politics broadly, right?

I don’t see a problem with a bunch of European-specific questions being asked, so I question the need for an expanded rule.

If you broaden the rule, you run at risk of banning or discouraging desirable questions. Stuff about economics or lifestyle. Those are “political” too, after all.

What does this mean …?

It seems that the rule seems to work well enough here as is. In addition to the rule, how you enforce it is equally (if not more) important too.

If you want a simple explanation why he couldn’t spy:

Imagine that your internet traffic is a bunch of letters. HTTP are postcards. You can read the message and destination both. HTTPS are envelopes. You cannot read the message, but you can see the destination.

When using VPN, you stick every letter/postcard in another envelope, addressed to the VPN company’s address. They unpack the letter, set themselves as the return address, and send it on.

Your friend could previously look at the outside of your letters, and see who you’re sending to, and how much. Now, they can only see you’re sending to the VPN company, which isn’t helpful. (In theory, they can see the volume of data, but there isn’t much they can learn with just that).

These two graphs cover different time periods. It looks like the monetization of X lines up with that hump of sharply increased knife crime at the end there.