HN user
Just add "Y" and "no Y" to the criteria. We can handle having competitions with age, weight, ability, and formerly gender.. Just add Y chromosome, and then no prejudice, or assumption, and nothing to take offense to.
They're letting us know what we should have already known for a long time.
It's not the abuse of power that is the problem but the power to abuse.
Decentralize all the things!
As always the issue is force, and the solution is freedom.
This reminds me of the study of how long people tend to hold onto a FRN.
https://moneymaven.io/blackwealthchannel/community-building/...
Like "Literally" "evolving" to mean "metaphorically"?
When "X" becomes "Not X", that's not evolution but coopting. It's degradation, and it's often purposeful.
"Libertarian" means something, which is why the "Libertarian Party" required an oath to adhere to the non-aggression principle. The fact that statists moved in to ruin the "Libertarian Party", take the oath and betray it, may make them "Libertarian Party" members, but doesn't make them libertarian (in fact, the opposite).
Are you a Christian if you're not Christian but call yourself "Christian"? Are you an atheist if you believe in a god? Are you "blind" if you have perfect vision?
I realize that this assault on reality/truth is at the heart of many issues today.. We have no language if things can mean both a thing, and/or the opposite of that thing.
...which is the point.
You may have a libertarian perspective on an issue, or a group of issues (as almost everyone does), but that doesn't make you libertarian, which means liberty in all issues. There is a line between minarchist and anarchist, and a reason for both terms.
I hope and doubt this will change JRE much.
On the topic of libertarianism..
Almost all statists share some libertarian perspective on some issues. No libertarian has statist perspective on any issues. There are a lot of self proclaimed libertarians, Christians, Muslims, or people of any principle, who are incorrect. Unlike "Republican" and "Democratic" which don't mean anything, "libertarian" means something. You can claim you are "libertarian" just like you can claim you're a "martian", but it doesn't make it so.
Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are not the only two who mistakenly call themselves "libertarian" at times. They just don't know what it means.
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." — L. Neil Smith
We should strive for the only equality possible, which is equality in face of the law. There is no other equality. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
There is no situation where those with more resources don't have more resources. The best we can achieve is that each rightfully earns their resources.
It does from a short sighted, tyrannical, perspective.
Utopia is not an option, don't fall for the fallacy. Americans believe that freedom is the best option we have.
Vigilante justice is the only possible justice. Again, the universe has it's own "enforcement method". Anyone who claims anything doesn't have "downsides" is selling something.
Whether you agree or not, objectively, the United States is for people who value freedom above everything else. Those too afraid to live freely should live anywhere else.
Which is one of the reasons I don't quote Ben Franklin, who had some points despite his Statist faith.
Let's not get caught up with logical fallacies. Points stand on their own merit, despite how some misuse them.
There is no need for more "enforcement" of responsibility than what is. Ostracism, and/or starving, freezing, being shot, to death, etc., is sufficient.
Government is the disease posing as the cure.
Government doesn't "enforce" responsibility. Despite what they're selling, TANSTAAFL.
Freedom and responsibility can not be separated, and there is no need or want for artificially added, or subtracted, responsibility.
For those in the US who disagree, they should be thankful that they're still free to leave, and go anywhere else that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. It is inappropriate to stay in the US, or worse come to the US, and try to violate the rights of the individual because you're too afraid of freedom, or the inherent responsibility.
That is correct. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated.
Freedom is for the brave. Those who prioritize things ahead of freedom should not live in the one nation which exists to protect freedom.
Libertarians understand that there is no greater danger than lack of freedom. Obviously statists don't understand this, which is why they fall victim to the perpetual shilling of fear. There are more fitting nations with congruent priorities.
They who give up essential liberty for the illusion of security end up with and deserve neither liberty nor security.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
TANSTAAFL
If Spacex can get Starship flying in the next three years, I would think they could meet this deadline. Unlike Mars, there aren't the same launch window requirements.
Even if Starship isn't flying, Falcon Heavy is the best we have today. It would seem that if anyone is going to meet this deadline, it'll be Spacex.
Boeing has been stealing contract money forever. Great investment, NASA.
Consider Jitsi
I suppose what I meant to ask is, does anyone have any evidence of this being actually true? If so, how would one specifically mimic a closed lid? In lieu of us doing our own experiments, has anyone discovered the appropriate size/strength magnet, and precisely where it could be placed, or whatever other tactic, to activate this hardware switch?
Is there any chance this is true? If so, is there a way to trick the hardware into switching microphone off, even while being used?
I know that some people are only as efficient as they're forced to be. I hope there are efforts to take what is needed, and make it more efficient. There are efforts like Commander X16 to make a new 8 bit computer, and others where people are rewriting things in Rust..
BTW, I have a first gen iPad sitting around that worked very the first two years or so of its existence, and it barely functions today. I know part of that is Apple "protecting" older batteries by slowing down older stuff so we go out and buy new things, but I would like to believe that we're capable or creating an OS for that hardware today that would run better than it did originally, rather than barely function at all.
I have wondered how it is that my Mac Plus became a machine with almost no noticeable delays when I upgraded to 4mb ram, and now I have 8gb of ram, and a less responsive system. I realize my system is far more dynamic today. I just wonder if one day we'll be using systems with 4tb of ram that would be snappier if upgraded to 8tb or 16tb.
Given the nature of open source, I'd be surprised if there isn't a alternative for less dynamic, less resource req, systems. Is there a system out there that still uses fewer commands?
I don't know how to ask this next question, so please bare with me.. Are there any modern systems that don't require modern hardware, but are just more efficient versions of past systems?
I have been happy with the way I could use my computer for the last 20 years (probably earlier, too).. so are there any efforts to keep the simplicity of older systems that were adequate for most, make them more efficient, and either have "super hardware", or I suppose very cheap hardware?
Thanks for anyone who made it through my ignorant ramblings.