See my other post below for a little more context, but basically it showed that people will do awful things if someone in authority tells them to
Well yes and no. You can say that it's just the people in any experiment but past a certain point you have to be able to extrapolate the results to the population at large. And (again, if memory serves) the results of this experiment have been replicated numerous times across numerous population samples.
Also, the point of Milgram isn't that people are fucked up, it's that people will follow orders when those orders are issued by someone in a perceived position of authority. And it's funny you mention Nazis because the experiment was Milgram's response to the "I was just following orders" defence from the Nuremberg trials.
In conclusion: non-fucked-up people will do fucked up things if their boss tells them to.
If I correctly remember my psychology lessons from 10+ years ago though, the results of Milgram's experiment has been reproduced countless times which sort of backs up the original point.
Your argument is really "Indian isn't a race"?
Are you telling me a new Half Life game came out three years ago and I missed it?
It's definitely racist when you say that those are Indian family values. It's not racist is you say those are Sunak family values.
I think any reconstruction of a dinosaur where there is just a skull as a refence point will be taken with a fairly large pinch of salt. However, many dinosaurs look fairly similar to other dinosaurs that we do have more complete fossils as reference, so they'll end up being based on those as well.
Is there any way to make JS safer? E.g. limiting the scope of its access to specific functions (e.g. visual/DOM changes, posting/querying a server only but no local function), or is it just inherently unsafe?
Is there any way to make JS safer? E.g. limiting the scope of its access to specific functions (e.g. visual/DOM changes, posting/querying a server only but no local function), or is it just inherently unsafe?
EDIT: I understand your point by the way. Is it ethical to pirate things? Maybe or maybe not, but I think the stance of most people here is that pirating stuff that is produced by giant, obscenely wealthy media conglomerates is generally okay.
You are discussing piracy in the context of media and copyright infringement, in which the owner of the pirated material is a corporation and the pirate is an actual person.
By comparing the act of pirating corporate owned digital material to a fictional scenario in which one person is copying another person's physical possessions very much implies that you see the corporate owners of digital material as people.
EDIT: I understand your point by the way. Is it ethical to pirate things? Maybe or maybe not, but I think the stance of most people here is that pirating stuff that is produced by giant, obscenely wealthy media conglomerates is generally okay.