HN user

dojitza1

128 karma

dojitza.github.io

Posts15
Comments40
View on HN

I believe this is done partially to dissuade bad actors from gaining easy unverifiable access to hardware and software thus rendering anti theft technology ineffective. If you mandate all repairs to be done using a verifiable (and paid for) repair key which you supply to vetted people, it becomes that much harder to replace the anti theft module as a common thief. Even large scale operations would then be harder to run as they would require a fence of sorts to use as a repairman. Of course that fence would then risk their credentials and so on...

Slow integration actually being enforced by uncomfortable laws is the only way we get to enjoy diversity and multiculturalism. The friction is otherwise too large. I would personally like an utopia where we all magically get along no matter the culture, race, ethnicity etc. but the real world is a different pair of shoes.

Second hand sofa market is surprisingly good in all cities ai lived in (Europe) You can get great stuff for less than 100eur. Good luck figuring out there transport and cleaning though.

I know it's not practical because of select few bad apples, but giving a year's notice to the affected people, letting them finish up the work and mentally prepare, and all the while coaching them through the process of finding a new job seems like a humane thing to do.

I always thought about the public discourse regarding wars in general

Let's say the majority of the population is simply 'anti war' and focus on these people.

Is it not sufficient to support this message?

Does not with with us = against us actually apply to wars (or maybe this particular war)

Wonder what your thoughts on this are.

I believe that people that advocate banning people with extreme and/or dangerous viewpoints from public forums and communities also don't want child rapists and murderers to be rehabilitated.

In my experience this is a relatively strong percentage pf people, which affects everyone, irrespective of the viewpoint axis.

In this case, we have an example of a sjw/progressive viewpoint person which does not believe in 'those' people having any food left in them.

The difference between gambling and crypto is in the timelines. Gambling has a high frequency where crypto is quite a bit lower. This allows some lucky people to 'exit the casino' by the virtue of being lucky enough to have won the bet, and being pressured somehow to cash out and not continue gambling. For some, it is a birth of a child, perhaps a purchase decision etc. Low frequency allows for these events to take place, betting on horses does not.

I'd go as far as to offer an explanation like this: The universe/multiverse is infinite in every (by our brains) comprehensible and incomprehensible form. Both on a macro and a micro level. Our existence is finite in nature, both in space dimension (objects have edges) and time (they change form). It is understandable we have trouble interpreting some of the rules of our universe that we are unable to comprehend. I say quantum mechanics (and perhaps natural science in general) are our attempt to make sense of something fundamentally not comprehensible.

I agree. Async communication is hard. Humans are not equipped for this. We are limited in our focus and prioritization ability. It is the same reason calling someone on the phone gets you results and information 10x faster.

Thank you for the followup.

Just to clarify, you use your personal blog domain to stage websites for customers? That is an interesting use case. It does project your brand, since you are on your own infrastrucuture (at least visually, you still probably use a hosting provider) instead of github/heraku/etc

So you say being a paying customer gives a higher guarantee that you won't be locked out of your domain and be forced to switch to a new one, potentially losing a good chunk of your readership. It makes sense, and thank you for your answer.

As for the signaling, I don't view it as something undesirable. It is an innate human need and we rely on it heavily. I was just wondering what people found useful in addition to it.

You are correct in that there are fundamental problems with a statement as simple as the one I made. Don't take it at face value though. If you ignore your surroundings and formulate an opinion that is obviously different, I'd argue your ability to recongnise scientific consensus is severely lacking - Distilling it into something like "Don't trust anyone other than the scientific consensus" might be better.