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.

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

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

A cup of drip coffee is 150-200 on average. Multiply based on a pessimistic interpretation, then reduce.

You could also measure UV light absorbtion in the 260-280 nm band and compare to a calibration chart. That seems a lot more excessive than just estimating and working to reduce, as opposed to targeting a specific number.

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!

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.