If your Java dev is using Jackson to serialize to JSON, they might not be very experienced with Jackson, or they might think that a Java object with a null field would serialize to JSON with that field omitted. And on another project that might have been true, because Jackson can be configured globally to omit null properties. They can also fix this issue with annotations at the class/field level, most likely @JsonInclude(Include.NON\_NULL).

More details: https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-ignore-null-fields

I’m Hedgehog, the poor senior dev who was assigned to review Hal’s code.

Panel 1: ✅ (PR Approved) LGTM but you’re missing the styling from the mock-ups, should be easy to add.

Panel 2: ❌ (Changes requested)

Nit: Hal, your PR failed in CI. You should have used const instead of let. Did you forget to run the linter before pushing?

Also, the useState hook isn’t doing anything. If it doesn’t need to, just leave it as an uncontrolled component. I didn’t look at the surrounding code but this is part of a form, right? If not then it should be receiving the setter/value as props.

Panel 3: ✅ LGTM, ship it.

❌ Actually wait, you still have that do-nothing state code in there. Either get rid of it or do something with it.

Panel 4: ❌ Hal, I don’t like where this is going.

Panel 5: (during stand-up) I reviewed Hal’s PR and just had a couple pieces of feedback. Shouldn’t take long, right, Hal?

Panel 6: ❌ WTF, Hal. <InputField /> is literally just passing through props to input, so you don’t need it.

Also, Hal, I recommend you look into the Styled Components library. It might better fit your needs here. You could rewrite the LoginComponent as a styled input. Of course, if you do that you should refactor the existing places where you’re using style sheets to use styled components and themes instead.

You also still have the do-nothing useState hook for some reason. Seriously, Hal, get rid of it.

This is how I’d write this without bringing in Styled Components, but if you use it make sure to test it first:

import React from ‘react’;
export const LoginForm = (props: React.ComponentPropsWithoutRef<‘input’>) => (
  <input
    {...props}
    className={`border rounded-md p-2 focus:outline-none focus:border-blue-500 ${props.className || ‘‘}`}
  />
);

If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

This article is full of misinformation and reads like the rantings of an angry and incompetent MAGA propagandist.

Does it make sense to have robust protections for an event that will have 65,000 civilians present - and where the equipment and personnel involved can be deployed to other high profile events afterward, even if there isn’t a specific drone threat? Yes.

This year’s Super Bowl in Las Vegas has better protections against rogue drones than the many small U.S. bases in the Middle East like Tower 22

“Many small US bases,” huh? And the author thinks that each of them should be better protected than the Super Bowl? That doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Is this in a heavy casualty zone or something? No - we’ve had 3 casualties, total, across all bases, since this engagement started.

Don’t get me wrong - I think our soldiers should be kept safe. Leave it to me and I’d have every single one of those soldiers back on US soil. That would keep them safe but probably wouldn’t make the author happy.

Unlike Tower 22, this year’s Super Bowl will enjoy a host of “hardened” measures including electromagnetic weapons that can incapacitate drones.

The bases have anti-drone tech, but they also have drones and one was returning at the same time as the attack, which likely is why a large part of why the attack was successful. Does the author think that the super bowl defenses would have foiled such an attack? He implies as much but gives no evidence in support of that claim.

In fact, the entire region is a no-drone zone. So sure, we can deploy the super bowl defenses to those bases - they just have to understand that their drones will be shot down, too.

To be honest, from my uneducated point of view, the defenses described for the bases sound more sophisticated than the ones in place at the Super Bowl, not less.

That all said, the author’s other article has this tidbit:

Just a week before the attack, the military announced an $84 million contract to work on a replacement to the TPS-75, a mobile, ground-based radar array from the 1960s.

So the military is literally in the process of improving their defenses and they just haven’t been built yet? Strange, in this article the author said there hadn’t been any efforts to improve them.

Compare this hypervigilance with the glib way the Biden administration has discussed the terrorist drone that slipped past military defenses and killed three Americans and injured 41 others.

Glib how? This is what I found for their response:

The president, in the written statement, called it a “despicable and wholly unjust attack” and said the service members were “risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism. It is a fight we will not cease.”

Doesn’t sound glib to me.

For the most part. You know, besides the deaths of three National Guard soldiers from Georgia. Working class people with families — the supposed focus of the Biden administration’s “foreign policy for the working class.” But who cares about them?

I imagine at least the victims of the 85 retaliatory attacks the US made cared.

It’s unclear what the author wants, other than to wave a “Let’s Go Brandon” flag around while getting drunk and posting misinformation.

That isn’t ergonomic. Look at how her wrists are splayed and how her shoulders are uneven. She’s just begging for an RSI.

To summarize, since the article headline is a bit misleading and the autotldr comment was garbage:

At least 33 times, shortly after the “Libs of Tiktok” X account posted about an accusation about a particular school, hospital, government office, small business, etc., that place received a threat of some kind. 21 of those threats were bomb threats.

Detectives, police officers, and government officials find the timing of the threats suspicious and believe they might have been issued by supporters of the account. When NBC News asked about this, Raichik, who runs the Libs of Tiktok account, declined to respond, but referenced the communication on X with a yawning emoji, dismissing such claims, stating that the threats were by people seeking to paint her as an extremist and discredit her.

Three of the threats have resulted in prosecutors pursuing charges.

The article also gives some other info on Raichik and the account:

• EM unbanned the account and he regularly engages with and boosts the account’s posts
• “Raichik was appointed to the Oklahoma Department of Education’s Library Media Advisory Committee by Superintendent Ryan Walters” earlier this year
• Konstantine Anthony received violent threats by email within an hour of Libs of Tiktok featuring him

There are a number of logical inconsistencies in your comment.

First, “someone who had a hand in assembling my car” necessarily includes the corporation employing the people involved in assembly, not just the laborers themselves.

You’ve probably heard the phrase “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” It’s relevant here. To make a profit, the companies involved in the R&D, production, marketing, distribution, and sale of any product, like a car, must pay the workers less than their labor is worth; this is inherently exploitative. If an “ethical” company tried to enter into this space and avoided doing that, it would be outcompeted by unethical companies that exploited their workers. Strategies to avoid this, like injecting capital from elsewhere, simply move where the exploitation occurs.

Any art funded, produced, marketed, or distributed by a corporation cannot be ethically consumed. Art created by an independent artist can be ethically consumed, but only if all of their supplies were ethically sourced.

As such, the point - that abandoning art because of something one artist involved did requires the use of a line of reasoning that would necessarily result in refusing to make almost all other purchases - holds.

It’s especially relevant given that the original post regarded someone who has no fortune because he is dead. A dead person’s fame is irrelevant. Unless there is an estate or some other institute that is profiting from increased visibility into his work, their art can be consumed or criticized on its own merits. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for criticism or analysis of it with the additional context from the artist’s life, but if such criticism takes the form I’ve described above - if it boils down to “You shouldn’t consume X because of Y thing related to its creation” - it’s reasonable to dismiss it due to it relying upon the same fallacy.

Listening to a CD you already purchased has no further impact on the band’s livelihood.

Streaming their song on Spotify has a negligible impact, but it doesn’t “facilitate their abuse” any more than buying a loaf of bread does. In either case, the companies involved are enriched more than the laborer, and since the companies themselves are themselves a larger problem than just the few members of a band could possibly be, you have to choose between:

• refusing to consume anything and starving
• only refusing to consume a product arbitrarily - e.g., when the problems relating to its production resonate with you or when the problems are currently in the spotlight
• only refusing to consume a product when the producer was the least ethical of its alternatives
• only refusing to consume a product when the problems are particularly egregious (think Nestle levels here)
• only consuming products that are the most ethical options for a given product class
• adding the ethics of a product’s creation to the criteria you use to determine which product to consume, such that you more frequently consume more ethical products but will still sometimes consume the least ethical product of a given class
• some combination of the above
• consuming products without considering the ethics of their production

Saying that someone should not consume Led Zeppelin but that buying a car is okay would fall firmly into the “refusing to consume a product arbitrarily” category.

I had a gym tell me I could only cancel by mail, so I sent them a certified letter. They kept billing me and eventually the letter got returned because they never signed for it. So I just disputed the charges from every date since I’d first sent the letter. After I shared the scan of the returned envelope with my bank the first time they made every subsequent chargeback real easy. I think they billed me two more times after that before they finally stopped - unsure if it was because they were blacklisted or because of the fees they got charged.

For trivial calculations that’s still going to be accessible just by looking up a formula. For more complicated ones… I can’t remember the last time I needed something like that. What sorts of use cases are you thinking of?

So your stance is “We can’t be perfect when it comes to implementing free speech, so why even bother defending people’s right to freedom of expression at all?”

Encouraging censorship would hurt more marginalized people than it would help.

I’d prefer a world in which we protect the vulnerable rather than the protecting the folk who are trying to hurt the vulnerable

You think free speech is an unattainable ideal, but when you’re asked to clarify whether you’re talking about government censorship, too, or “just” corporate censorship, you reply with this fairytale nonsense?

Even if we limit the scope of that to just Cloudflare and other internet infrastructure companies, they’d basically have to stop offering their services to anyone to the political right of Bernie Sanders. Not that I’d have a problem with that, but it’s never going to happen. Sure, a single company could do that, but that wouldn’t change the fact that the rest of them don’t.

Being upset about Cloudflare “protecting” nazis is misplaced anger. It’s like being upset because the police stop you from hurting nazis. Like, there are so many reasons to be anti-police, but this isn’t one of them. Being frustrated because they’re in your way is one thing, but saying they’re shitty people because they protect people (even when those people are nazis) is toddler level logic.

Are there things to be angry about with TDS? Absolutely. There’s the nazis. There’s Trump. And there’s the people whose actual responsibility it was to protect the vulnerable - law enforcement, mostly, but government in general here - and who did nothing, as far as I can tell.

So your stance is basically “We can’t be perfect, so why even try?”

Would you prefer a world without the first amendment in the US, for the UN to abandon the idea of freedom of expression as a human right, and all that entails? Or is it just censorship by corporations that you’re cool with?

You don’t think that the concept of free speech exists?

I’m not talking about the free speech of Cloudflare, aside from like one paragraph. I’m talking about the free speech of law abiding US citizens.

Cloudflare isn’t a monopoly. Why do you think it is?

Cloudflare acted against their self interest by not taking down TDS sooner. It would have been in their self interest from a public image perspective to do so. Why would you suggest otherwise?

Why do you think that both the EFF and I are the ones who are confused here?

You’re welcome, and thanks for the reply!

I think drawing the line at nazis is a good idea in theory, but a very difficult one to implement in practice. For example:

• If someone doesn’t self ID as a nazi, how do you determine that they are one?
• What if the site’s owner self IDs as a nazi but this particular website is just a bunch of cooking recipes?
• Suppose the site owner probably isn’t a nazi, but the site has a bunch of users and a subset of them are creating content that crosses the line, and the site has a hands off approach to content moderation. If the site is 1% nazi content and 99% fine, do you block them entirely unless they agree to remove nazi content? If not, at what threshold does that change? 10%? 51%?
• Once you’ve done that and they’ve agreed, do you have to establish minimum response times for them to remove nazi content? If the nazi content isn’t taken down until half the site’s daily visitors have seen it, the content moderation isn’t very effective. But if you require them to act too fast, that could result in many people being refused service because of other bad actors.
• The bad actors aren’t even necessarily nazis. If it’s known that Cloudflare refuses service to sites that leaves nazi content up for more than X amount of time, then it becomes feasible to take down a site that allows comments by registering a bunch of accounts and filling it with so much nazi content that the site’s moderation team can’t handle it in time. How do you prevent this?
• Do you require them to ban nazis?
• If they do, but the nazis just register new accounts, do you require them to detect that somehow? Do you have to build that capability and offer it yourself? Now you’re policing individual users. You’re inevitably going to end up stopping Grannie from registering for an account because of someone else - they jumped on her wifi, compromised a device on her network, or something along those lines.

This is all pretty complicated, and I’ve barely scratched the surface.

The revised line they drew with Kiwi Farms (as well as the “we follow US law” line they already had) is a much simpler one that’s still morally defensible:

“We think there is an imminent danger, and the pace at which law enforcement is able to respond to those threats we don’t think is fast enough to keep up.”

One word you used stuck out to me: “deplatform.” I wouldn’t call this deplatforming. I’m used to seeing that word used to refer to someone being removed from social media, having their YouTube channel shut down, having their podcast removed from Spotify, etc… I mentioned this in another comment on this post, but those situations are fundamentally different, and it follows that the criteria for doing so should be different. In that other comment I also talked a bit about why I think free speech is infringed if you can’t publish a website, but isn’t infringed if you can’t create a Facebook account.

You also might find this Wired article interesting - it has quotes from and background about the CEO of Cloudflare related to the TDS’s removal, some insight into the internal company dialogue when that was all ongoing, etc…

If you have to be dragged kicking and screaming by public outcry before you cancel Nazis, you support Nazis.

If the only way you can say that Cloudflare actively supported nazis was because they didn’t cancel them, it sounds to me like Cloudflare didn’t actively support nazis. Why is it so hard to say “Cloudflare didn’t cancel nazis” instead of lying and saying they “actively supported” them?

But you know what happened as well as I do, so your framing of events that way is interesting…

Yes, I do, which is why I’m confused as to why any reasonable person would think that Cloudflare’s actions here are in any way problematic.

Cloudflare considers themselves to be akin to a public utility. Do you think that public utilities should be able to refuse to provide their services to law-abiding nazis? I’m talking phone lines, electricity, gas for heat, water, etc… If so, why? Should it be limited to nazis? How do you ensure that only nazis are prevented from having running water and electricity?

Because ultimately this comes down to a company treating themselves as a public utility, and structuring their processes for determining if they would offer services to a company or individual under that basis, and then, having an established process, being resistant to making an exception to that process to refuse service to a group of nazis. Cloudflare said that there was a huge uptick in the amount of takedown requests that they received after they took down 8chan and The Daily Stormer. If their process were amended to prohibit certain kinds of legal speech, they would face increased pressure to take down even more sites, and not just sites belonging to nazis.

Again, this is all about the ability to have a website on the internet and not about being able to have a platform on social media, Youtube, Spotify, etc… The sites, effectively, are buildings, but the internet is like the land. I’m not saying anyone should be required to let a nazi in their building. Criticizing Facebook for not de-platforming nazis is fine. This is about access to what are effectively essential public services.

I see being able to run a website as an extension of the right to free speech. Because hosting a website on the internet requires the involvement of companies - domain name registrars, DNS hosting services, ISPs and the network, etc. - if you are consistently refused one of these services by these companies, you’re effectively denied this right. If you try to go start up your own domain registrar, you still have to deal with a company - the domain name registry. If you try to start up your own domain name registry, you still have to deal with a company - ICANN. The assets of these companies are protected by the government, and if you were to try to force your site onto the internet, the government would stop you. This probably isn’t technically government censorship, but it serves that same effective purpose. No, it isn’t government directed, but being directed by the market is just as bad, and in some cases, worse.

If you’re fine with a company refusing service in this instance, with the rationale being because they fundamentally disagree with the site’s content, it follows that it should be fine for such a company to refuse service to sites of politicians they don’t like (or who are in a race with one of their bigger customers or donors), anti-fascist forums, far-left and far-right forums, sites providing information on abortions, sites dedicated to open source projects that they or one of their stakeholders don’t like, storefronts for products they dislike, etc…

Maybe you think that would all be fine? I don’t. I think that sounds like something out of a dystopian late stage capitalism short story, and I want nothing to do with it.

If you’re not at least in agreement that it wouldn’t be fine, then I don’t know what to say. Why do you disagree?

If you are in agreement: it follows that access to internet services should generally be treated like access to public utilities, even if the companies aren’t technically considered to be public utilities. Legally prohibiting such companies from refusing service without actually classifying the companies as public utilities would itself be a violation of free speech. But it is still reasonable for them to behave like public utilities.

And given that this is reasonable, saying “Cloudflare supports nazis because they behaved like a public utility and didn’t ban these sites run by nazis, even though there was a huge public outcry” is a nonsensical statement. It’s basically “Cloudflare supports nazis because they did something reasonable, even when nazis were involved.” By that logic, “Cloudflare supports Hillary Clinton because they provide services to her site” is a reasonable statement. Does Cloudflare support every site that they provide services to? No, obviously not. Do they support every site that they’ve refused to honor a takedown request against? Again, no. Why is that answer different when nazis are involved?

I was looking for a quote from the EFF and found this article that covers the topic from Cloudflare’s perspective: https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/ - it’s worth a read, IMO.

Anyway, here’s the EFF bit:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has taken a stand that what it calls “intermediaries”—services like Cloudflare and GoDaddy that do not generate the content themselves—should not be adjudicating what speech is acceptable. The EFF has a strong presumption that most speech, even vile speech, should be allowed, but when illegal activity, like inciting violence or defamation, occurs, the proper channel to deal with it is the legal system. “It seems to me that the last thing we should be doing is having intermediaries deputizing themselves to make decisions about what’s OK,” says Corynne McSherry, legal director of the EFF. “What law enforcement will tell you is that it’s better for them to be able to keep track of potentially dangerous groups if they’re not pushed down into the dark web.” She adds: “I want my Nazis where I can see them.”

Another topic the article covers - not in EFF’s words, but in the CEO of Cloudflare’s - is that beyond just the “intermediaries” like Cloudflare making these calls, you have vigilante cyberattackers who DDOS the sites of people they don’t agree with:

Prince spoke about the peril posed by DDoS attacks. We might all agree, Prince argued, that content like the Daily Stormer shouldn’t be online, but the mechanism for silencing those voices should not be vigilante hackers.

I agree with this, as well as with the EFF’s take, and as far as I can tell there simply isn’t a rational criticism of Cloudflare’s resistance to banning The Daily Stormer that doesn’t literally require accepting that free speech isn’t all that important.

CloudFlare actively supports hate groups

Source? Given that Cloudflare canceled the accounts of The Daily Stormer, 8chan, and Kiwi Farms, and that they otherwise avoid refusing service to any site that’s legal for them to provide service to in the US (including torrent sites, for example), I’m inclined to disbelieve that claim.

This reads to me like:

Cloudflare is consistent in their refusal to censor legal free expression by refusing service to those sites. As a result, they serve sites containing offensive, but legal free expression, as well as expression that should be illegal (and may already be - specifically when it comes to). People are mad about this.

To emphasize their refusal to police the content of sites they host, Cloudflare used to simply forward complaints about their customers to those customers. They thought they were making it clear that they were doing this, and maybe they were, but sometimes people miss those sorts of disclaimers and given the subject matter of these complaints, that was a bad process on their part. They haven’t apologized but they have amended their process in the years since.

Did I miss anything?

Now, I get that “free speech absolutist” is a dog whistle for “I’m a white supremacist” thanks to the ex-CEO of a particular social media company, but there’s a difference between

1. saying it and not doing it, and
2. actually doing it

And unlike the aforementioned anti-semitic billionaire, Cloudflare is pretty consistent about this. They refuse to block torrent sites as well, and I’ve never heard of them blocking a site that was legal and should have been kept around. (As opposed to immediately blocking the account of the guy who was tracking his personal jet.)

That all said, Cloudflare did eventually cancel the accounts of The Daily Stormer, 8chan, and Kiwi Farms.

I wouldn’t feel as strongly about this if the examples of corporations that do censor speech didn’t show that they’re consistently bad at it. I’m talking social media sites, payment processors, hosts, etc… If Cloudflare were more willing to censor sites, that would be a bad thing. And they agree:

After terminating services for 8chan and the Daily Stormer, “we saw a dramatic increase in authoritarian regimes attempting to have us terminate security services for human rights organizations — often citing the language from our own justification back to us,” write Prince and Starzak in their August 31 blog post.

These past experiences led Cloudflare executives to conclude “that the power to terminate security services for the sites was not a power Cloudflare should hold,” write Prince and Starzak. “Not because the content of those sites wasn’t abhorrent — it was — but because security services most closely resemble Internet utilities.”

To be clear, I’m not saying that social media sites should stop censoring nazis. I’m saying that social media sites are bad at censoring nazis and just as often they censor activists, anti-fascists, and minorities who are literally just venting about oppression, and I see no reason why that would be different at a site level instead.

When you have a site that’s encouraging harassment, hate speech, cyber-bullying, defamation, etc., or engaging in those things directly, that should be a legal issue for the site’s owners. And on that note, my understanding is that there’s a warrant out for Anglin’s arrest and he owes $14 million to one of the women whose harassment he encouraged.

Cloudflare said they’re trying to basically behave like they’re a public utility. They’re strong proponents of net neutrality, which is in line with their actions here. There are reasons to be suspicious of or concerned about Cloudflare, but this isn’t a great example of one.

Side note: It’s funny to me that the comment immediately below yours says that one of the reasons to distrust Cloudflare is because of a concern that they may have been abusing their power (due to effectively being a mitm) and censoring particular kinds of content.

The point is that we aren’t comparing the generations to one another; we’re comparing them to modern day chickens. And we aren’t comparing by checking to see if a given creature “looks completely unlike a chicken.” That’s not how we differentiate species today, so why would we use it here?

As one example, one common and fairly simple definition of a species is a collection of individuals that can breed with one another and produce healthy offspring (“healthy,” in this instance also meaning that they must be able to produce offspring of their own). Obviously this doesn’t apply to bacteria or other things that reproduce asexually, but for our purposes, it could be sufficient. So you take this and turn it into a test: “Can this creature breed with modern-day chickens and produce healthy offspring?”

Now, even that simple question may involve qualifications in order to allow a binary answer. For example, maybe modern day chickens can breed with only 30% of other modern day chickens (of the opposite gender) and that number steadily decreases as we move back in time. The threshold for species differentiation here is going to be arbitrary.

That specific question is a bad choice in this instance, since chickens are descended from red junglefowl and can breed with them. In fact, they’re sometimes considered to be of the same species - for our purposes, we want to know when we first had a chicken - red junglefowl don’t qualify. As such, with chickens specifically it likely makes more sense to make the distinguishing criteria something that would differentiate a chicken from a red junglefowl, like “Is it domesticated?” That even gives us a good place to start looking - current understanding is that all modern chicken owe their origins to a single domestication event in Southeast Asia, roughly 8,000 years ago. Another option would be basing it off the DNA similarity to modern-day chickens (red junglefowl have 71-79% of the same DNA as modern chickens), e.g., once the DNA is no longer at least 80.000% the same, it’s no longer a chicken.

And you’re not limited to a single question, so long as the outcome of the test is binary.

Regardless of the specific test, at some point, the answer will change from “Yes, it is technically a chicken” to “No, it is technically not a chicken.”

Nonsense. All you do is say “Here is what defines a chicken” and then, advancing backwards through the generations, point to the first creature who didn’t meet that criteria. That’s your “proto-chicken” and everything after it is a “chicken.” Yes, the last proto-chicken and first chicken would be considered the same species as one another if we were building a taxonomy of species today, but we’re not; this is a historical exercise.

The definition may be based on some scientific criteria that’s specific to a point-in-time and may be somewhat arbitrary as a result, but it’s not “imaginary.”

Rather than documenting that the patient refused to take it at 7, taking the pill away, and then (time allowing) giving the patient another chance to take it later, OP wants to leave the medication with the patient and document that it was handed to the patient at 7. Unfortunately, doing that creates uncertainty, which isn’t acceptable in a medical context.