HN user
Student at heart, computer scientist at work
hnchat.com:bpLXHOtDzM5sxTzmV2J1
I don't think you understand Chesterton's point. It's not that hard to see it is valuable to know why things were built.
It's the same reason we study history, to know what came before us so that we can make good decisions going forward.
Not arguing that it's a new thing, but there is always another way.
Making the problem bigger is an interesting way to go about it. I will grant that doing so does expand the number of people impacted, and therefore the number of people interested in solving the problem is also bigger, as well, perhaps, as the apparent pay off for solving it. But ultimately, the solution is going to be something that could have been applied by the same people who expanded the size of the problem.
You don't seem to grasp the thrust of the article. Chesterton does not set up two sides. And I don't know what you mean by "necessary, unjustified fences." Those two words stand in juxtaposition. If a fence is necessary, it can be justified. If it's not necessary, it cannot be justified.
Chesterton will have to contend with our time honored tradition of tearing down fences.
The point is not to prevent teardown of fences. It's to know why they were setup in the first place. If it was put there for no reason other than to spend what's in the budget, then there is no barrier to removing it. But if it was there for good reason then you need to prepare a counter argument for why it should be removed.
Unpopular opinion: This conflicts with SV's "disrupt everything" mantra.
To play the devil's advocate: Is it though?
Yes. Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.
The problem you describe exists in both scenarios, and is resolved with enforcement. You can sneakily break the law, and you run the risk of getting caught for fraud.
FYI this is the same guy who praised FTX.
I'm unfamiliar. Is there a source to this claim?
Wonder what Sacks will say. He was saying there should be more regulation on All In
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-ja...
Comcast extends delay on debuting data caps in the Northeast
Following a multi-month suspension of its usage-based policy during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, Comcast restored and updated its data usage policies in July 2020, raising the monthly limit to 1.2 terabytes – 200 gigabytes more than the 1TB limit that was in place prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. Under the revised data plan, residential broadband customers who exceed 1.2TB of data per month are charged $10 for each additional bucket of 50GB, up to a maximum of $100 per month (Comcast's maximum data overage charge prior to the pandemic was $200). Comcast also sells a standalone unlimited data option that costs an additional $30 per month.
https://www.lightreading.com/cablevideo/comcast-extends-dela...
The whole point is to not charge users twice for both the volume AND the rate of flow.
It's not hot button because there is no FCC chair. If the dems seat a chair, regardless of who it is, that would allow grassroots campaigns to reactivate.
Under Trump, I believe broadband ISPs were implementing data caps, and they backed off on that after Biden was elected. And some telecoms offer zero rated content. It's far more common overseas for telecoms and content providers to partner in providing access, so you get places like the Philippines where Facebook basically is the internet.
Yes. Those are people who think they can go hands free, use their phone or watch a movie while on autopilot.
Thank you for that context. It seems like breaches are happening every month now. What do you think needs to happen to ensure these gigantic companies secure data? I can imagine (a) new legislation enabling bigger, swifter fines or (b) anti-trust action. Do you think we should prioritize one over the other, do both, or something else?
Clarified in another comment, what I should have said is it's decriminalized, and therefore may have a different culture around recreational use that may or may not suit everyone.
Certain parts of the US have that culture, like traders on wall street who work 100 hour weeks, yes. Part of the culture doesn't mean it's everyone. I don't know where that lands for CR, I just know someone who went there specifically for recreational use because it's decriminalized. My point was only to be aware of this potential cultural difference, and that it may not be for everyone. I'm sorry if that is hurtful to anyone. I should have said that drug use is decriminalized and accepted, which is the real difference.
You mean sandstorm?
Edit: oh you do mean sandcats..
I know at least one person who joined a commune there and said it was part of every day life. Plus, just look it up. Drugs are "cheap and plentiful" there
https://theculturetrip.com/central-america/costa-rica/articl...
Be aware drug trafficking is part of the culture there.
Weak. Hit the pause button, Apple. I'm not won over by being told "I misunderstood". No, you misunderstood your customers.
I don't think "making voices heard" matters
Of course it matters. Politicians must listen to voters on topics of import or they're out. If you're arguing against democracy and for some imagined alternative, then I can't help you because that's a worse outcome.
It's true some policies do pass that a lot of people don't want. It's up to the voters to make an issue of that in the next election cycle. As an American living in the EU you can certainly use your voice. That may be as consequential as your vote if you are convincing. Since I do not live there I don't engage in those politics, despite the connectedness of the world. There's enough to deal with on our home turf.
My opinion here is that such policies are unenforceable and will therefore blow up in the faces of whoever implements them. Whoever does not will have the people's backing and will pave the way to the future. Of course, none of us can see the future, so we'll just have to wait and see. If I lived in the EU I would make my voice heard about that legislation.
Maybe, what's your point? You want this legislation to pass? You seem intent on delivering news of a future dystopia.
I don't think any of these scanned systems or policies will survive in the long run. They're inherently insecure and won't lead to growth.
Bad news for the EU maybe, if that were to pass. That sort of thing never passed muster in the US. There is always a huge backlash because it infringes on the speech rights of both companies and individuals. You'd essentially be forcing banks to build in backdoors that criminals could use, and also making it so that only criminals can use true E2E encryption.
There is no sense making laws you can't enforce. It erodes trust and credibility.
To me the observe step is implied. The scientific method is just meant to say it's okay to be wrong by prioritizing hypothesis over the conclusion. It allows you to be wrong and still fact-based in a world where people naturally don't want to be wrong.
It's okay to prefix this with an explicit "observe" step but the absence of that step in teaching doesn't mean we haven't already spent time observing.
Plenty do know and care when news outlets' tech experts report on seemingly incomprehensible topics such as net neutrality or encryption. You can't white wash expert opinion. Again, the government has been asking for this for decades:
let's face it, if you wait for the politicos to come up with a solution and force it through with legislation, they really would put in actual backdoors and encryption bans given half the chance.
They've tried to do this for decades and have failed. If they're going to do it then let it be on record. Let's see how voters like it.
When's the last time the FTC made headlines? Do they have teeth now?
Making promises is easy, delivering a sustainable profitable company is hard.
Useful context, thank you.
I'd expect the FTC to get involved before NHTSA. Tesla's marketing is fraudulent.
I don't think it matters whether or not you think Uber was acting responsibly or reflexively. The point is their program is done while Tesla's, which has seen far more fatalities, continues unabated.