DTNS 3060 – Measure Twice, ARKit Once

Logo by Mustafa Anabtawi thepolarcat.comApple’s ARKit shows fast results, Nintendo springs the Super NES CLassic, and and why Africa needs more than just connectivity.


Using a Screen Reader? Click here

Multiple versions (ogg, video etc.) from Archive.org.


Follow us on Soundcloud.

A special thanks to all our supporters–without you, none of this would be possible.

If you are willing to support the show or give as little as 5 cents a day on Patreon. Thank you!

Big thanks to Dan Lueders for the headlines music and Martin Bell for the opening theme!

Big thanks to Mustafa A. from thepolarcat.com for the logo!

Thanks to our mods, Kylde, Jack_Shid, KAPT_Kipper, and scottierowland on the subreddit

Show Notes
To read the show notes in a separate page click here!

2 Responses to “DTNS 3060 – Measure Twice, ARKit Once”

  1. Mark Christman

    I was listening to DTNS 3060 from Monday, 26 June, where there was mention of the “Shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” quote. Would you to look into that quote a bit further – it’s been misused as an appeal to authority for how and why to put unjustified limits on free speech. As a starting point, there’s an excellent summarizing blog article by civil rights / first amendment attorney, Ken White at popehat.com “Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough”. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/.

    Best and love the show,

  2. Mark I am aware of the weakness of using that phrase in any kind of rigorous discussion of free speech.

    However, divorced from Holmes and the Schenk case, I feel it actually provides a very good quick analogy for people, which is in fact how Holmes used it. I used it in the sense of an example that not all speech is protected, which I don’t think you are arguing against. I was not using it to justify any kind of censorship or to make a rigorous assesment of when speech should be restricted.

    In the context of our discussion yesterday I feel it was an appropriate use of what has become a colloquial saying and that it generally will have two effects. One is for most people to understand I mean to say that some speech is protected by the First Amendment and some isn’t. The other effect is to have folks send me Mr. White’s excellent analysis of why the phrase should not be used outside of the most casual setting.

    If I were to cease using the phrase in those cases, it would be only to head off those responses.