It's because a missing child is not the same as an abducted child.
If you don't know where your child is, you tell the police. They radio the miscellaneous patrol cars and they inevitably find the six year old trying to walk somewhere silly within a few hours.
That's a missing person report.
Divorce going poorly. One parent thinks the other shouldn't get any custody. So they pick the kid up from school when it's not their turn and go to their parents house. That's a missing person and child abduction.

Basically, it's a category error. We're All tracking the same things, but our huge category has the same name as their narrow one.

No, it's not acceptable, it's just entirely fails to justify building a panopticon.

Acceptable implies we don't need to do anything. I'd happily spend some tax dollars to try to bring it down.

I believe what they're saying is you can't use work assignment to pressure someone to quit as a way around labor protections.

As with a lot of legal stuff, the intent matters.

Right? Having the employee repeat it back in their internal words is fine and tells the customer they've been heard correctly, but you don't need to make then customer jump through hoops.

Coffee shop I go to used to do the Italian thing. Then they switched to small/medium/large. They finally settled on just listing the volume on the menu.
The entire time you could just say any of them and they knew what you meant.
If they have no idea what you meant they can ask for clarification. They even have the cups right next to the register they can hold up and confirm.

Turns out not pissing people off is often as easy as "asking for clarification if needed". Also offering free espresso occasionally helps.

Cringeworthy isn't Internet slang. It's been around for decades. It's like saying "humongous" is Internet slang.

Catty? "Like a little girl"? The hell is wrong with you people that you're looking so hard for insult where none is intended? I apologize for being too casual in my assertion that I think you're bending the work to fit your views instead of explaining why you think his views on tolerance aren't correct.

Yes, I'm saying he included that statement because it's the "why". Suppression of intolerant speech can be justified because it can lead to violence. The violence or incitement thereto isn't a precondition that justifies suppression in his view, but the end state to be avoided.

I'm not sure what you're saying by drawing a distinction between the Nazis and the brown shirts or spelling out the party name. I know the Nazis were violent before they had political power.
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

I can see very clearly why you're not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance.. while you are literally in a thread about tolerance

I thought we were in a thread about a popper quote? Because I'm pretty sure I replied to someone saying it was misinterpreted.

I said your phrasing was disingenuous because you characterized the position of people you disagree with in a dismissive fashion. I said you were projecting your opinion because instead of saying "I disagree with this person" you chose to say "they are actually saying what I think and are just generally misunderstood".

The person who put forward the idea, or gave it a name, was a pretty notable philosopher who was notably in favor of a discourse driven liberal democracy, and against fascism.

He didn't mean paradox in the sense of "self contradictory and unresolvable" like the liars paradox. He meant it in the sense of "seemingly contradictory".

In order to have the most tolerant, rational discourse driven society possible there are some things you cannot tolerate, nor engage in discussion with , because if you cannot be persuaded there cannot be rational discussion.

So the paradox was named by a person explaining why you don't have to listen to Nazis just because you want to be open to new ideas and perspectives.

Coming to the conclusion that it's not contradictory is agreeing with the argument that it's okay to just tell Nazis to fuck off.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it's refusing rational argument that's a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Further, if you finish the paragraph it becomes clear that the opening statement is anything but a misunderstanding:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

You don't have to agree with him, you can be partial to rawles, but popper was not vague.

Goodness, if someone quotes that part of his work again I'm going to lose it. He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won't do that it might lead to violence.

I already said I'm not interested in debating the nature or role of tolerance at the moment.

What are you even talking about? Walk me through how what I said was "disingenuous"? I very earnestly believe there are different views on this topic than poppers that are perfectly valid.

Bigotry and hate of opinions and philosophies you don't like?

I'm honestly confused where that's coming from, considering you rage quoted me saying it's okay to have a different opinion. I never even said I disagree with you on tolerance.

Whelp, I missed the blocking statement on first read.

Not a direct response, but a response as part of a larger philosophical narrative.

He was a true believer in a society driven by rational discussion and the free exchange of ideas, which was the main point of his work.
As part of describing how he thought society should be run (tldr: we should discuss things, change institutions peacefully, and make small changes that we can actually tell if they worked instead of upending society in the name of an untested ideology) he spent some time describing the edge cases and weaknesses, which is where the quote comes from.

He wrote the work during WW2 after fleeing Germany, so there's more than a little implied context that people would have at the time of publication. Basically a general vibe of "what the fuck! Let's not do that again!"

You're projecting your beliefs onto popper. You don't have to agree with him. I'm not interested in debating the appropriate nature of tolerance in society.

I really don't know how much more clear he could have been about his beliefs: incitement to intolerance is not the same as incitement to violence. He extremely plainly states that we should engage in rational dialogue if we can, but reserve the right to suppress intolerance, even by force, because they may begin preaching violence.

we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Claiming the right to suppress them because it "may easily turn out" is not the same as "once it becomes clear". He's extremely obviously not using incitement to intolerance as a stand-in for incitement to violence, because he says it should be criminal in the same fashion as incitement to violence.

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Consider the context in which he wrote what he wrote: world war two had just ended. We saw what happened when an open society allowed an intolerant right wing group to spread hateful rhetoric: they started small, got extreme, and then got violent.
Is it too much of a stretch to think he would have the opinion "it would have been okay to stop the Nazis when they were shitty, and before they got evil"? In the aftermath, influenced by popper and people like him, Germany outlawed the entire ideology.

No one considers it counterintuitive or ambiguous if you need to tolerate people being violent or inciting violence against you.

simply saying things you don't like hearing

That's a disingenuous way of portraying hate speech. Even if you're in the "tolerate hate speech" crowd there's no reason to trivialize someone else's position.

You're under no obligation to agree with popper. There's no need to turn his position into a different one so you can agree with him. We don't need two Rawls.

Isn't his problem mostly that he's kind of a jerk in person because he doesn't want to be bothered, as opposed to doing anything wrong explicitly?

I did a brief look and it seems like most people are upset that he's talked about science that has political connotations.

Glad to know if I missed something though!

Read it again. He's using incitement to violence as a consequence to to be avoided, not as a driving factor.

for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

He goes on:

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

He was writing at the end of WW2. He was saying it would have been fine to stop the Nazis at the start, before they were inciting violence because they couldn't be reasoned with.
It's clear you don't agree with his position , and that's okay. You can just disagree with him.

You would be correct. However, they would truncate the password to eight characters, and 7 bits per character. This allowed the password to fit inside a 56 bit block for a des based hashing scheme.

This is an old scheme, but it was very compatible so it lingered on and on.

Yeah, a lot of the time they're just there because people look for them if they're not and then they fidget, don't wait for the signal and dash into traffic.

The town I grew up in, the vast majority didn't do anything but they gently beeped, and if you pushed the button it would tell you the sign status until it completed the cycle. Helpful for vision impaired people.
There were a few that shifted the traffic lights to a different cycle and otherwise it never did a pedestrian cycle.

There was one though, where pushing the button nearly immediately started a pedestrian cycle.
There was a wide block with an apartment building in the middle on one side, and a grocery store directly across from it. Not long enough that people complained, but enough so that people still trotted across the otherwise busy street a lot. After trying nearly everything else they eventually put a traffic light in the middle of the block that was nearly entirely on demand for the crosswalk button, because almost any delay and the (college student) residents would just dash across.

Watching confused drivers was fun.

It's less common to have a light or crosswalk away from a junction. Usually when you push the button it changes the lights to the crossing sequence on the next cycle so everything keeps flowing, so a pedestrian might hit the button, then wait for traffic to stop, then cross traffic, then a dedicated turn cycle. It can be a bit of time.
The light in question would turn yellow the moment you pushed the button, without integration with the nearby lights. Driver's usually don't expect to get stopped after being allowed to pass a red light after only about 100 meters.

In general, there's too much variation to say the US as a whole doesn't do some traffic thing. If it exists odd are someone tried using it on a road somewhere.

Very old operating systems used to have a method for password hashing built in that could only handle 8 characters max. The need for compatibility with it, or things that were too zealous in being compatible lingered for a very long time.

It's not good, but some services end up behind firewalls that reject inputs that look like SQL injection. Sometimes they decide it's better to prevent sql-ish passwords than risk some weird fluke.
Sometimes they just say |, I, and l all look too similar and our users are idiots. Which is awful practice.

My personal feeling is that password length should be capped with the length of input the system can handle. Plaintext copy of Alice in wonderland from project guttenberg? Go for it.

Typically you want to do the lockout for a location, not the user, or you step up the auth level. 3 bad logins -> please mfa before trying again.

But yeah, letting an attacker do that at will is bad. I'm a fan of token bucket rate limiting with exponential back off. You get 10 attempts. A new attempt is added every second. An attempt while the bucket is empty makes that become two, then four and so on.

Most people never notice because a buffer of ten and a new attempt every second just never runs out. If you accidentally hold down enter you're only blocked for a few moments. A dumb attacker quickly locks themselves out forever.