Umm, maybe because there is a line item on our pay checks for unemployment tax in some (all?). On my paycheck, the tax is called SUI (i.e. State Unemployment Insurance) which is not to be confused with SDI (State Disability Insurance). In my state, the unemployment tax rate for employees is 0.5%. In any given pay check, the tax does not amount to a large amount, however it is certainly being deducted from my pay check.

I thought the first version without famous people was better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm not suggested that platforms such as Google and Facebook shouldn't be protected from the content posted by users. However they law allows them to also moderate content. It seems they have the best of both worlds (platform vs publisher) without the consequences of either. In my opinion the law should be modified so that open platforms either do not moderate user content or if they do moderate user content they are held to the same standards as publishers. However I believe that the protections which allow forum/blogs/community pages/etc to moderate their content and comment sections. So Facebook, Google, etc would have to choose to be either a platform or a publisher. However the end users have the legal protection to curate content within their areas as they see fit.

As an example. If Facebook wants to be a platform, then they should not be allowed to ban legal content, even if it is reprehensible. On the other hand, a club of martian aliens would have the legal protection to ban comments, users, and content on their facebook which suggest that no life has been found on the red marble and hence the members of said club may have lost all their marbles for thinking they are from Mars.

.

Laws have made similar distinctions in the past. For example, the DMCA has an exemption which allows the carrier to cache content, regardless of copyright status/permission, provided that
1. the caching is completely automated
2. the carrier does not manually manipulate the cache unless required by law
3. the carrier removes content from the cache upon receiving a DMCA notice
This exemption can be used to cache content which would otherwise be legally risqué such as bit torrent traffic.

To summarize, I believe the law should be modified so that platforms who do not curate content are legally protected from the content hosted on the platform. However if they company manipulates the data or censors content on their platform (beyond action required by law), then they be treated as publishers and are liable for ALL content on their platform. This change would not apply to the end user whether the user be the "owner" of a particular board, page, profile, etc or whether the user is commenting on other user content.

Unfortunately, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:

COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

It appears that it is written into law that "platforms" are both protected from liability from content hosted on their infrastructure and permitted to censor content on their infrastructure. IMHO, this is extremely broad and open ended since practically any content could be deemed "otherwise objectionable" by someone with an opposing view point.

To be fair, you already need to have permission to "touch" a file. Granted you could argue whether it is the file or the filesystem which grants you permission to touch the file. So to be politically correct you need the file's affirmative consent to either "look" at the file or to "touch" the file, otherwise the system's CoC "spiritual guide" ("cocd", sorry I meant "cocsg") may bring you before an extrajudicial tribunal for misconduct and "euthanize" your shell.

*Laughs* Goes back to working on some 300+ Slackware VMs.

BTW, the site only lists 2 vulnerabilities for CentOS since 2012, so I don't think it uses as complete a dataset as you think. As an example there has been at least 10 high severity OpenSSL vulnerabilities which affected CentOS since 2012 and neither of the 2 CentOS vulnerabilities listed on site you provided are for OpenSSL packages.

According to the census data, Texas and Alaska both have had higher population growths than California (Alaska since 1940 and Texas since 1990). These are the two states larger than California. Additionally New Mexico (since 1990), Arizona (since 1950), Nevada (since 1950), Colorado (since 1990), Oregon (since 1990), and Wyoming (since 2000) have all had higher population growths than California. In fact the all of the 10 largest states (other than Montana) have a historically higher population growth, according to most recent census data, than California.

California has the largest population, however the runners up (Texas and Florida) have higher population growth than California.

I'm calling BS. Sure I work as a Unix systems administration and I came into the field in 2000, however 4 out of 5 people in my department with ages ranging from 22 - retirement do not have college degrees. The people in other departments (wireline installers, telephony switch engineers, sales team, etc) I work with routinely make $75K - $130K and most (if not all) do not have college degrees. My uncles who work in various blue collar jobs (1 is a machinist, 1 is a carpenter, and 1 is a factory worker) only have high school diplomas and all make $70k+.

On the flip side I have two siblings with college degrees who make <$30k due to decisions they have made.

If an 18 year old is not well qualified to figure out whether their education will result in good value, then wouldn't it be safe to argue they are not well qualified to figure out the election issues of the day? Sign contracts without consent of a legal guardian? Make medial decisions?

18 year olds are either responsible enough to be adults or they are not responsible enough to be adults. They cannot play both sides of the fence. If they agreed to the term of the loan, they should be held accountable to the terms. Growing up, the young adult should have had better instruction/guidance on finances and responsibility from an authority figure such as a parent or at a minimum a teacher, however agreeing to the loan was ultimately the young adult's decision.

DPDK helps to optimize the networking stack for specific hardware combinations (namely Intel CPUs used with Intel NICs). DPDK is intended to reduce the processing load of software based network in addition to lowering network latency. The development kit consists of user space libraries for software packages like Open vSwitch and kernel modules. The software stack's user libraries interface with the stack's kernel modules which make use of special features in the NIC's firmware. My impression is that it is used primarily in software packages which provide networking services for hypervisors. For example Open vSwitch in a KVM hypervisor.

My Alpine Linux systems doesn't have a GNU userspace on them because don't need it. The base is still Busybox/Musl Libc/Linux. Just saying.

However if crypto toolkits would finally implement and actually validate certificates using "DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities" (DANE), then all of this is moot since the DNS operator for a site would be able to specify which specific TLS key is being used by the site with a few DNS records. A government entity wouldn't be able to man in the middle a TLS connection without either cracking the TLS keys themselves or by compromising the the root DNS server keys.

You too are falling into the same self denunciation. The idea that denouncing someone for having a "hardcore attitude" without nuance is in my mind also a hardcode attitude and adding "extra_denounce" for a person's religion is also repugnant.

The last time I checked, the judge does not add extra time to a prison sentence during sentencing due to the defendant being Christian, Muslim, or "yadayada". However I do believe that the judge usually has some leeway in terms of the sentencing depending upon the nuances of the case. So I say again, reducing individuals and groups to a single binary conditional is a very hardcore attitude.

You just described hardcore Christians and maybe hardcore Muslims as scum due to their religion. Does this not make you an undesirable by your own reasoning? Perhaps the world is more nuanced than you allow for in your reasoning and perhaps degenerating an entire group due to either stereotypes or lack of understanding of a group's beliefs is not wise nor fair.

My kids don't see the packaging for the toys they have since most of them came from rummage sales and thrift stores, they also do not watch TV (we actually do not have one). As for the picture books they read, the picture books of trucks, tractors, and air craft don't show people (male or female), the picture books of people are of either babies or family members, but the bulk are books have animal characters like "Piggie and Elephant" which as far as I can tell do not assign a gender to either character. That doesn't change that the fact that my daughter almost always picks up "Our Alaska Family" which shows pictures of various Alaskan babies from around the state and that my son sticks mostly to the book which has big pictures of machines with their names (but no people).

Also, wouldn't the visual cues about gender roles really only have an affect on their behavior if they are self aware enough to know that they are a boy or girl? At 16 months of age, I'm not sure they are self aware enough to know they are different sexes let alone which sex they are.