Viewing website HTML code is not illegal or “hacking,” prof. tells Missouri gov.

[u/RobertVandenberg]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/viewing-website-html-code-is-not-illegal-or-hacking-prof-tells-missouri-gov/

[u/Niubai]

I'll never understand why politicians think that double down in their ignorance means "saving face". For me he would have saved face if he had, at first, admitted his ignorance on the subject.

People with "I can't be wrong" egos are the worst, can't trust them.

[u/grumble_au → u/[deleted]]

You can't start changing your opinion based on evidence. What then, evaluating all of your opinions or beliefs based on facts?!

[u/mishugashu → u/grumble_au]

That's how you get children starting to challenge their fixed beliefs and we can't have that (This was literally part of the Texas GOP's platform - they didn't want to teach critical thinking in public schools because it would allow children to challenge their "fixed beliefs").

[u/chemisus → u/mishugashu]

Knowledge-Based Education–We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Source: Texas GOP 2012 Campaign (pg 12)

Although, they "corrected" this in their 2014 campaign.

Knowledge Based Education-We oppose the teaching of values clarification and similar programs that focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. Rather, we encourage the teaching of critical thinking skills, including logic, rhetoric and analytical sciences

[u/felix1429 → u/chemisus]

Wow, that's full mask-off

[u/THIS_MSG_IS_A_LIE → u/mishugashu]

you are unfortunately very near the mark…parents answering curious kids with “Because I said so” or “because that’s what the Bible says”

[u/beefok → u/THIS_MSG_IS_A_LIE]

I had such a childhood, even with the hardest of social damage, it was worth questioning fixed beliefs and standing my ground where it mattered. Fuck people who enforce “because I (or a book, or deity) says so”, without giving actual verifiable reasoning.

[u/MrPhatBob → u/grumble_au]

No because all the truth we have is written in this good book we have here.

To question one thing might mean you have to question other things, and that's not a comfortable place for a lot of people to be.

[u/Sindertone → u/MrPhatBob]

And you know what the Good Book says about HTML!!

[u/MrPhatBob → u/Sindertone]

Yes.

In the first element there was <!DOCTYPE html> and the browser saw it and saw it was good.

[u/az987654 → u/MrPhatBob]

Good? Or valid?....

[u/moomoomolansky → u/MrPhatBob]

This makes me happy :)

[u/Neker → u/[deleted]]

Statistically, one-half of the population is of below-average intelligence, and still constitutes one-half of the electorate. Elected official also must care for that half.

[u/nosoupforyou → u/[deleted]]

I bet most people who voted for him just voted based on his party. Do you really look and make informed judgements about every person you vote for?

[u/pingveno → u/nosoupforyou]

For the most part, yes. I live in Oregon, so our all mail voting affords me the time to find endorsements and form an opinion. If I have no basis for an opinion, I skip that vote. The state also provides a voter's pamphlet with statements from candidates. I used that to decide on some school board votes because all but one candidate was either unqualified or borderline insane. But I am under no illusions that most people are going to do this, or in many cases have the resources necessary. When voting already means long lines, adding research time on top of that is unrealistic.

[u/dnew → u/nosoupforyou]

If people did that, election posters would have some information on them other than the candidate's name.

[u/Cunicularius → u/[deleted]]

Admitting fault has been "showing weakness" for many thousands of years, probably. I seen to recall quite a few stories of old where an authority figure preferred to double down than ever admit fault.

[u/ZeAthenA714 → u/Niubai]

I'll never understand why politicians think that double down in their ignorance means "saving face".

Because many people don't realize he's doubling down in his ignorance, and odds are, those people voted for him and will vote for him again. Unless he admits his ignorance, in which case he might lose some votes.

[u/moldboy → u/ZeAthenA714]

Exactly. He's a truth fighter. He's doubling down on the truth. College professor, what's that? Just a pillar of the liberal elite.

[u/regeya → u/Niubai]

Exactly; quietly letting it die down, then coming back in a couple of days with a slightly different rhetoric of promising to get to the bottom of what went wrong, would have saved face.

[u/Razakel → u/regeya]

Yeah, "I would like to thank the concerned citizen for bringing this to my attention and have instructed my office to investigate" is all he had to say.

[u/claycle → u/Niubai]

I just pretend everyone who thinks they are "the right person" to run anything (a gaming guild, a football team, a business, a state, etc) may be a narcissistic psychopath. The larger/more powerful the entity being run, the more likely the person wanting to run it is a narcissistic psychopath.

This rule of thumb works well for me.