EggsOnToast

And if you read my replies you'll notice that I gave two examples. In response to your fixation on nuclear weapons I pointed out that developing better designs could be helpful with regard to maintaining an awareness of if modern technology has made some producing some version of the weapon, in my example it was a miniaturized version of the weapon, possible for a terrorist organization. I don't feel like it's asking too much to expect you to realize why that might be a useful thing to know for protecting the nation. In my other example I highlighted that having a cutting edge understanding of drone technology could be useful for defending our navy in the event that we another crisis similar to the time we sent ships to guard Taiwan. Given that the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis happened well within recent history I don't think it's unrealistic to suggest preparing for an analogous situation could be beneficial in the event that it should happen again but escalate this time.

If you don't agree with a part of what I've said then you're more than welcome to articulate your objections instead of asking a series of rhetorical questions. It's clear that you have strong feelings on the topic but at this point you're not trying to have a discussion you're just being belligerent.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your question since what you're asking for is a necessary quantity not a necessary level of innovation. There could be lots of reasons to develop a better thermonuclear weapon even if it's never put into use. Innovation in that area would help us to gauge the difficulty of miniaturizing such a device and, if it turns out to be difficult but possible, whether or not modern technology makes such a feat possible for a hostile non-nation group such as a terrorist organization. In the situation being discussed in the article, the argument would be that remaining on the cutting edge of drone technology allows us to evaluate the threat that drones could pose to our navy if a situation like the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis ever happened again.

There's also an argument to be made that remaining on the cutting edge of military science is a form of national security. Being one of the first, or only, nations to develop and test a new kind of weapon means that you'll also be among the first nations to be able to fully assess its practical viability and evaluate its countermeasures.

This could still be a grey area. Obviously pornography of young children could be identified by most people 99% of the time, the 1% being bizarre situations like mistaking a collection of cherub images for child pornography. But what about when the 'child' looks like a junior or senior teenager and so it's ambiguous as to weather they're of legal age or not? Is someone morally obligated to report potential child pornography in such a situation? A false report, even an accidental one, could cost an innocent person their freedom or a lot of money to preserve their freedom.

I always imagine an unspoken "at a certain price" when people say they believe in buying locally. I live a short distance from a grocery store in my neighborhood, but I rarely go there because I like to cook and their prices for meat and produce are always higher than the big chains. In the case of their meat the difference has sometimes been as much as $1.50/lb. which is huge if you're someone who prefers a frugal lifestyle.

Edit: As for condoms, I think the situation is a little different. They ruin sex compared to going without a condom, marketing from Trojan be damned. I'm not trying to endorse the mindset, but there are many people who are primarily just trying to avoid getting someone/themselves pregnant so if someone's on the pill that's good enough for them.

I agree that there's definately a need for more dialogue.

Then there's I think a unique angle to this specific case. If you're going to work for Lockheed Martin or Blackwater you at least know what you're getting into. Google does not present itself as a military contractor. Did everybody who works at Google really know that their code is used for this? Have they been informed, consulted?

When I was reading the article this part jumped out at me too. It's interesting because it's a debate that ultimately focuses on workers rights vs. the rights of the employer. A callous argument could be made that the political views of the employees shouldn't matter because they're not being paid to be policy experts they're paid to make a product. The counter argument of course would be that, even if the first argument is true, an employee who isn't informed about the nature of their work lacks adequate understanding to decide if they feel strongly enough to quit or if they want to take the job in the first place.

I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of moral relativism in this context when it's incredibly relevant. Someone who believes that developing and exploring this technology will enable us to save the lives of soldiers and better prepare to encounter the technology in the wild is going to have very different opinions than someone who views it as yet another tool to oppress the third world with. Both people hold ethical beliefs that consider and value humanitarian consequences.

Edit: I was slowed down for posting too fast so I'm adding my reply to IntronExon here:

It's an interesting hypothetical but I'd argue its appeal is mostly in its simplicity with little evidence to support the claim. The instances you've cited happened either due to a failure of accurate intelligence or because intelligence indicated the structure was being used by enemy combatants. It's very possible to arrive at the conclusion that any unnecessary casualties which occurred happened as a result of poor military intelligence which better reconnaissance drones could help with. It's equally possible that someone working on this kind of technology could see its field use against groups like ISIS as evidence that weaponized drones are a useful tool in fighting terrorist organizations. Obviously neither of these will be true in every instance, but without strong evidence it's hard to believe that the matter is as simple as "some people are just unemphatic".

From what I've gathered of the context I think the original presentation is correct. I read it as a joke criticizing an implied absurdity of tech groups being concerned specifically with what we use to kill people rather than whether we should be killing those people to begin with.

I must have missed the democratic discussion about private businesses assisting in killing people at all, a duty traditionally exercised by states.

I'm not sure if you're criticizing that this happens at all or if you're criticizing it as a new development. Either way, it's generally been actual killing that's reserved for the state (or its mercenaries). Private organizations building and refining weapons for the state has been a thing in America since the old west.

The upside of crypto currency is the amount of agency it currently gives to the holder. The downside of crypto currency is that as personal agency increases the protections from making bad decisions usually decreases. Ulterior motives aside, of which there are a few, the historical reasons that Joe Average is blocked from certain types of investment is because he was making enough bad decisions to warrant aid. Whether or not it's right to impose restrictions on Jack Everybody to protect Joe Average depends largely on your political outlook.

Slight tangent, how's the Tesla semi-truck been doing? When I was looking over the specs the range seemed low compared to a regular semi but I wasn't clear on if that was acceptable because they're targeting a particular subset of the semi-truck market.

You start by saying how a personal care assistant is rather unspecialized work and then go on to ruminate on the peculiarities of the job that most people wouldn't want to deal with.

Correct. Being willing to endure undesirable work isn't usually included in the definition of skilled labor unless that tenacity is accompanied by another requisite skill or certification. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't a socially valuable skill, just that given the bar for entry it isn't surprising the wage is that low.

Why isn't trucking an unskilled job just with negative features (long hours alone, danger to health given the erratic hours) too?

Because you've skipped over the training and licensing required to legally operate as a truck driver. You need a Commercial Drivers License if nothing else and many states require the completion of specialized courses before awarding an applicant their CDL. That CDL represents a specialized skill-set without which a person simply won't be permitted to operate as a trucker. Physical endurance and mental tenacity are critical traits in this instance too but they're far from being enough to get you hired.

Edit: Something else I glossed over, but which seems relevant because this is predominantly a tech oriented forum is that the average Cost of Living in America is in line with the wage being paid to the Home Health Aide. It might not be enough for San Francisco or a coastal area, but it's enough in general to pay rent and save some money on the side for additional schooling or whatever purpose appeals.

Was the food log from Supersize Me ever released? It's been a few years so maybe things have changed, but the last time I checked there was a severe lack of real information in Supersize Me to support the claims the guy was making.

Those numbers make sense at a glance. A truck driver, despite the popular image, more closely resembles specialized work than un-specialized. There are specific skill and documentation requirements to become a Truck driver. The healthcare work you linked to just requires a high-school diploma and no certs, if it's a job like caring for the elderly then the main factor driving up the wage is a shortage of people willing to deal with the challenges of working with an elderly person which can include rude or mentally ill families/customers, excrement, and being comfortable cleaning and/or bathing another human being.

It might just be too risky in their minds. I can't speak for every user, but if Spotify dropped the big labels I'd just go elsewhere. There's already enough platforms for discovering new or different artists, Spotify's value to me is being able to pick a song or band I like on a whim and know that they'll probably be there.

It sounds like what's missing is a bad faith mechanic. Assuming it could be implemented in a way that's not terrible or outright ineffective, it would be interesting to see a legal framework for barring a party from filing patent suits if they accumulate enough verdicts that rule their case to be outrageous enough to earn them a black spot.

Thoughtful content is good when I want something to mull over in a car ride or when I'm actually feeling curious. When I'm worn out and just want brain candy thoughtful content is effectively trash. It's not as simple as thoughtful content good and emotional content bad. Feel good memes are a perfect example of this.

From a systemic perspective, we can't correct for bad science until better science disproves it and becomes common enough knowledge. Unless you're both a parent and a cutting edge scientist in the field being employed against you, this is true at an individual level too. Incompetent application can, with transparent processes, be investigated by the defending party/parent/lawyer and be argued against. Or if the investigation can't be completed until after the children have been seized, corrections can be made and damages can be pursued.

I don't agree. I think that while it can be difficult to defend every instance of a patent or a particular implementation of patent law, this doesn't mean that every patent is bad or that the concept of patents is bad and needs to be outright abandoned which is what the OP was discussing.

America's patent system may not be perfect but this doesn't mean it's outright unproductive. This holds especially true when evaluated based on raw innovation. America's tech sector speaks for itself but is far from unique, America's pharmaceutical industry also comes to mind. Although widely criticized, and rightly so, the American industry produces nearly a third of the world's new molecular entities.

Those are both really broad statements. Developing innovative software costs money as does developing an innovative product or technology. The point of patents isn't to incentivize implementation it's to incentivize innovation.

I don't know that your conclusion really follows. Technical progress rarely happens in completely isolation form social mechanics. Things like government funding for research, subsidies for deploying or developing particular renewable energy technologies, and even the environment in which private innovative companies operate are entirely influenced by the government which in turn is ultimately influenced by social action. You're discussing a very particular kind of social action.

The only two words that are beyond what's taught in highschool in those quoted passages are "indemnify" and "pursuant" neither of which is actually too complex to understand from a cursory google search. The sentence structure is straightforward and it's grammatically clear that the parties listed are all part of the clause pertaining to who you agree to indemnify. The bulk of your argument is that it's unfair to expect people to have a basic level of reading comprehension for a transaction that's entirely voluntary on their part. I don't see the great crime against humanity you're trying to establish here.

Is there a reason why it's such a binary choice though? I understand why a master tradesman would take a big pay hit. But what makes it so difficult to have a tiered system where pros train midlings who train lowbies that train newbies?

I agree that it's worth acknowledging the effects of 401ks as having some downsides for retirement in general. That said, I don't think it's fair to consider it a "significant" downside at face value when the upside of the transaction is that you can leave it to your heirs. For someone who values individual agency and family values that's going to be an upside, for someone who values optimizing around what benefits society at large it's obviously a negative. I might also be wildly misunderstanding you though so please correct me if I've gone off track.

I'm not sure why your tone is so hostile when I was just asking a clarifying question. More to your point, I don't see what part of the ToS you found especially convoluted, but since your estimate about the length is so exaggerated I doubt you actually read it. The wording was boring but clear and its formatting wasn't particularly mysterious either.

If your point is more generally that we shouldn't be able to just skim a ToS and give consent, what's your alternative that doesn't destroy the ability of online businesses to engage in these kinds of agreements?

Edit: I'm adding this here because I can't reply to the comment below me by s73v3r_ 26.

You in particular might not care, but there are a lot of people who feel like these businesses provide valuable services and don't mind being expected to actually be accountable for the things they agree to. If you don't like ToS businesses online, come up with an alternative. Otherwise, unless your plan is just to go on a tirade, you need to at least try to consider an alternative to outright destruction or your argument is going to lose all of its persuasive power when talking to people who do value these services.

Do you have a link on that or are you talking about the current article? I believe you but I wasn't one of the early adopters of MoviePass so by the time I joined I skimmed the contract, nodded, and thought "Got it, you spy on me and I get cheap stuff."

This was my feeling too. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is expected to freely give away their data, but if I can do it voluntarily to get get a deal as good as MoviePass then that's a win/win to me. It's $15 for just -one- ticket in my area. MoviePass has been a game changer for me.

It can be used as an argument against both. But that's irrelevant to a discussion about what the presentation of this evidence says to a jury.

I think there's a second angle to this, which is that the assumption in your example is that the tech company is the one distributing the good within a particular country. There's an argument to be made that, unless the company has hardware housed in the nation, the transaction equally resembles someone crossing the border to purchase a good and then coming back across.