On the other hand, if somebody said "I'm here for terrorism" and the immigration officer laughed that off, imagine the shitstorm if that person turns out to be a terrorist.
For the individual employee the cost of wasting someone's time by escalating the case and detaining them is zero, the potential cost of letting someone slip by is realistically tiny but potentially huge
The point is that the situation must be really crazy if we reach a point where someone (mostly foreigner) saying "tourist" is being confused as to saying "terrorist". Airport are full of tourists, and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".
So when an immigration officer makes an error parsing the tourist's words, you think the security protocol ought to be to let the tourist pass through the gate?
> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"
Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g.
"Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?"
or
"Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?"
It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?
Might as well just turn up at the immigration desk, slap your wrists down on the counter and invite them to handcuff you .... why bother with the form !
> the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.
Yeah but if the immigration officer has reason to question you about those sections of the form then surely they have more than enough evidence of the underlying crime anyway ?
It’s often an easier case to prove that you lied on the form when you said you came to the US with no intent to commit espionage than it is to prove that someone committed espionage.
It basically unlocks a second set of potential facts that they can use to bring a criminal case (or revoke a visa, etc).
Intent to commit espionage is not a crime (but committing or attempting to commit it is) Lying on the form is. It is probably easier to demonstrate intent to commit espionage than to catch them in the act.
Wouldn't it be easier to make those things illegal and then prosecute them instead of the lie? For prosecuting a lie you need to prove 2 things, the thing lied about and the lie itself, so it seems like a more difficult prosecution for no reason. Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?
> Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?
You sure about that? Many other countries have what would be considered odd questions on their forms.
Also, saying "every other country" is a mighty wide brush. There are a whole lot of countries where the rule of law doesn't come first and they can simply do what they want if they suspect you of anything regardless if they have a law or not.
This is what happens when a legal system and a political system is taken over by specialists with little to no other skills.
Instead of politics being about setting policy to work toward desire outcomes, politics becomes about ensuring the viability of future political processes. Instead of the legal system being about defining crime, establishing punishment and carrying out said punishments it becomes about ensnaring others in legal "gotcha" moments like lying on a form. Society is not safer because of the outlawed nature of lying on a form. Society is not better off because someone is convicted of lying on a form. The individuals who participate in the prosecution are better off because it gives them an opportunity to advance their career.
Making false statements to federal officials is itself a crime. The intent of having those sections is to be able to have legal recourse against people that lie on them, which hopefully deters people that would lie on them from attempting to immigrate in the first place.
Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was
No, being a member of a “terrorist organization” and the government allows itself latitude in defining that. It’s much easier to associate someone with an organization than to show personal acts of terrorism.
Right but to demonstrate that you lied about X they have to demonstrate X. So by the time you're deporting someone for the lie you could just as easily have deported them for the thing itself.
But the method of due process may be different, and the standard of proof to meet may be different. Revoking a visa is easier for the executive branch to accomplish.
Having formerly been a member of a terrorist group is different from currently being in one - it may not be illegal, but lying about it is a deportable offence.
You're making assumptions the thing they lied about and the thing they are being deported for are the same, and quite often the thing you're actually being deported for is not a reason to deport anyone at all.
You come to the US and make a social media post saying Trump is a big fat dummy head.
You get deported for lying about being in a terrorist organization.
This pattern of government behavior is everywhere. One common one is the yellow sheet (form 4473) for buying a firearm in the US.
Here is an example of a question
> “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
No matter the state law, federal law says it's illegal.
So, what happens. At some point you buy a gun in Colorado. Then lets say you get on the news and talk about legalization, or you talk about anything that catches social media popularity and someone in the government doesn't approve of. Well, you better not have any record of a marijuana purchase anywhere, or pictures of you doing it because you've just committed a federal crime and the ATF/FBI can kick down your door as they please.
But is insulting the president evidence of being in a “terrorist organisation” ?
I thought free speech was the one principle that is untouchable in the US
Member of a terrorist organization. Did you protest for Palestine action? Then you're a member of a terrorist organization, and they don't have to prove you did any terrorism or planned any terrorism. It's a form of thoughtcrime.
> I always wondered what the rationale for that was
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. An easy way to keep communists out of the country.
And we've seen how easy it is to expand that list with "antifa" groups just recently, with antifa groups in Germany having to deal with their banks closing their accounts because the banks were afraid of getting hit with retaliation in their US business.
It could probably be part of the premise for a gag in a hypothetical Liar Liar 2 after Jim Carrey haphazardly finds himself mixed up in one 30 minutes earlier in the movie, so there's that.
Happen to be a Dane and I fully agree with your sentiment. I happen to agree (I think) that keeping children away from social media on a large scale, to avoid social isolation for those who might opt out of choice, might be overall good for the children. But the means that will likely be required to do so are, like you say, essentially more steps towards mass surveillance. And like you say, laws that can be exploited so easily by a government in bad faith are so dangerous to allow into public law, even in times when exploitation seems unlikely, because they'll likely never be removed (hah) or even amended before it's too late. Like Chat Control (though it seems pretty clear to _me_ that that is set up for abuse to begin with). I'm so embarrassed we're spearheading that abomination.
Am I supposed to read something into the choice that the examples for "light" and "dark" show icons for different entities? E.g Python is dark, Rust is light.
(Kidding, but still - why not use the same base icons?)
As I gained more experience writing Clojure, I went in the other direction; familiarity with the standard library means that any composition of those functions and data structures is easily grokked. People's strained attempt to name every little line of code? Not so much. You end up jumping around the code a lot and, in my case, suffer the "portal effect" where you forget the context of what you were trying to understand. Also, namespaces become polluted with functions that only serve as assistants to your main function. This is a lesser concern, but still, it dilutes the focus of the namespace.
A nice middle way is using let bindings for whatever you want to give clearer names. You get the name you want while reducing the reader's scope to the literal let binding.
I do agree that big functions can be unwieldy, but I think that if it's mostly core clojure fns, and you're experienced, much bigger sized fns are acceptable than name-everything advocates generally prefer.
But it's individual and an artful balance even if the only reader is yourself. There's no silver bullet.
Could it be that her work in pure, abstract mathematics, while important and foundational for some fields, remains too unrelatable for a wide audience?
Maybe the same could be argued for Einstein's work, but knowledgeable people, recognizing its importance, have found ways of explaining it in a relatable way... ?
It's not implicit in this case, it's explicit. + is the function you're calling. And there's power in having mathematical operations be functions that you can manipulate and compose like all other functions, instead of some special case of infix implicit (to me, yeah) function calling, like 1 + 2, where it's no longer similar to other functions.
The problem with postgres scaling is that you have to have a single master which means horizontal scaling really only gives you more reads and a failover. Eventually you wont be able to find a server big enough to handle all the writes, and if you get enough reads with even a small number of writes single master setups fall over. Distributed computing gets complicated very quickly but the gist here is basically that you need to be able to have multiple instances that can accept writes. Lots of literature on this but good starting points imo would be the paxos paper https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/time-clocks.pdf and dynamo db paper https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/amazon-dynamo-sos...
