jujulet

Ahh, I see. Thanks!

Maybe I'm missing something, but you're basically saying 'the speed of time is a function of the speed of time'.

Yeah but 'fast' is also defined in terms of time...

speed of time isn't fixed and absolute

Isn't 'speed' defined with the use of 'time'? Doesn't that make an expression such as 'speed of time' kind of meaningless?

I also don't understand this. The boxes don't seem to be organised in any logical way, they just spell HTML?

I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations.

No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting through 'claimed' innovations.

If all new discoveries were the property of the state/public then there wouldn't be a high incentive to be inventive for any given individual.

Most innovation is not done for money. It's done by people with genuine interest in the subject, often earning less than an average professional in the field. The vast majority of valuable R&D for computer(s/ing) came, and still comes from the public sector.

It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer.

Why is it that intellectual property proponents always try to make analogies using physical property? Copying != moving/deleting. If I was a farmer and along came some poor hungry people that saw me farming, learned from it, then went and farmed their own land, I would have no problem with that.

Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort?

If we're talking about innovation, then because it could make farming easier, safer, more enjoyable, healthier, etc.

I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow

How much of that is because the general audience is conditioned over time to adapt to that particular kind humour?

That's not really saying anything, especially coming from a free-market crusader and with no reasoning/arguments attached.

Also that which stringent free-marketers and ancaps consider a 'free market' probably can't exist at all.

Has anyone seen a formal proof of different cardinals based on axiomatic set theory? The diagonal argument in particular is very weak imo.