No, people already believed that.

I assert that tab, inasmuch as it is an ASCII character, was always a bad idea. In a word processor, indentation functionality should be achieved the same way as any other indenting. In a fixed format like source code, it's completely redundant with spaces. Yes, there are scenarios where you can use tabs, but that could also justify specialized control characters to represent underline, italics, bold, and text colouration, which could all also be interesting presentation elements in source code and other text-stream applications. Instead we parse out compounds like [b] etc. Or more generally, you could have control characters that natively held styles. Generally we instead let your text editor apply styling to your source code using some minimal knowledge of your language's syntax.

I feel similarly about RTL control characters and Ideographic Variation Sequences, but at least in those cases I understand and accept the backward-compatibility problems they were designed to solve. Fortunately, I've never heard somebody demand they be supported in source code, and they aren't in your typical ASCII set -- you have to go to Unicode. Tabs are a bad idea that people only think are a good idea because they are expressible in ASCII.

As far as I can gather, he wasn't opposed to abiogenesis so much as abiogenesis on Earth.

He figured the odds against abiogenesis on some other class of places which might be:

a) possibly more abiogenesis-friendly
b) far, far, far more numerous than the number of Earth-alikes

Multiplied by the odds of panspermia were much more pro-life. To the point where he figured space viruses could even account for modern epidemics.

Obama was seen as the best alternative of several options for LGBT rights.

Firefox vs. Chrome or IE (yes, IE) is basically a wash.

None exists? Are you paying attention?

I've been saying this a lot lately, but this is exactly like saying that women had the same right to vote 100 years ago as men: one vote per penis.

One person being affected -- Eich -- is an even smaller minority affected by this. Why should life be fairer for him than for the gay?

Actually gays do face physical violence, but I agree Eich didn't do it. If Eich was doing it, we'd be arresting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Instead, there were demands that he step down. Why are you the only one who gets to blow things out of proportion?

I agree. But the current state of affairs is worse. This is similar to the fact that I oppose laws that specifically exclude the mentally disabled from the death penalty, because I oppose the death penalty.

It's literally the CEO's job to represent the whole company.

You've come up with a fair answer, but the flaw in your reasoning is that the RPS game is less independent of the coin toss game.

In particular, the coin toss game makes scissors an obvious loss. No solution that includes scissors can possibly be optimal, because scissors loses at minimum 50% of the time.

Redistribute your scissors over to rock and work it out on a calculator; you'll see an improvement in outcomes.

I think this is not quite correct, because scissors are a losing proposition. Throwing scissors cannot possibly, in and of itself, net a profit in the long run. At least 50% of the adversary's throws are rocks, which causes scissors to lose. It can only break even if the opponent chooses a 50% paper 50% rock solution. So if the goal is to do better than chance, then every scissors throw is suboptimal, regardless of the adversary's strategy.

I would redistribute your 1/6 scissors to rock and make it 2/3 paper and 1/3 rock. This should cause the adversary to react by decreasing the proportion of scissors in their own strategy (since it loses to your increased rock portfolio), which is good because our strategy is paper-dominant.

The adversary will counter with 1/2 rock, 1/3 paper, and 1/6 scissors.

With your strategy that still includes scissors, it would have been 1/6 paper and 1/3 scissors, which would be significantly worse.*

* Didn't actually do the math on this one like I did on the others; this is just instinct.

Your statement is more wrong. He has a minimum 50% chance of playing rock each round. He can play rock 100% of the time if that's the equilibrium strategy.

The summary is only wrong in the same sense that you are -- it seems to be setting an amount, rather than a lower bound of rock. It's not inaccurate to say that you're forced to play the rock 50% of the time when the 50% forcing function is a random variable rather than a strictly determined function. It just means that any finite section doesn't necessarily include at least 50% rock.

A law was passed making it illegal in that jurisdiction in the next day or so.

That's like saying that women always had the same right to vote as men: one vote per penis.

Another perspective is that Men are denied a right extended to women, the right to marry men. Women are denied a right extended to men, the right to marry women.

I don't think it is. Honestly that's semantic bickering. Nobody thinks Eich is beating people up on the streets. If we did we'd call for his arrest. However basically everybody agrees that, as far as we know, he has not done anything that deserves arrest.

We don't ask CEOs that beat people up on the streets or set fire to people's front laws to step down. They get fired without anybody asking, and they get arrested.

What? How different was 2008 from 2014?

Welcoming contributions regardless of religious views doesn't mean welcoming regardless of actions taken which are justified by religious views. Otherwise that's just carte blanche. Somebody who bombs abortion clinics, for instance, is not an acceptable employee.

Obviously Mr. Eich's actions were way less dramatic than bombing an abortion clinic. That's why people aren't calling for his arrest or anything like that.

I think gay people would rather Obama as US President than almost anybody else, to a much higher degree than they prefer Brandon Eich over anybody else as Mozilla CEO.

Even Richard Stallman allows the use of proprietary software where there is no OSS alternative. This guy is known for taking an extremely hard line on his unusual ethical stance. Another point:

The difference between javascript and Firefox is that Firefox has alternatives for OKCupid.

We draw the line at informed consent. This has been very consistent, although there are cases where informed consent is less clear-cut (eg. age), but with gay adults it's as clear-cut as with straight adults.

Also, it's very unclear that extending marriage rights in one sphere implies that we're extending it in others. In Canada, the age of marrying rose from age 14 to age 16 while gay marriage was being legalized. It's basically going up through history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada#Previous_1890_law). Of course, if your base assumption is that some number like "18" is the "right" number, maybe that doesn't comfort you.*

In any case, marrying an inanimate object doesn't even make sense. Marriage, in the government sense, is a set of legal rights. Inanimate objects have no rights in and of themselves.

*Odd fact: in Canada, there is a separate age of consent for anal sex, which is 18.