toolz

Which isn't ideal, but easily better than the pentagon that has literally never passed a full audit since they started auditing them in 2018. I'm a huge fan of musk's company's, but I don't want my public tax dollars ever choosing winners/losers

copy-left is referred to as open source and some even claim it's _more_ open source, but thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the that detail.

edit: oh it's not copyleft, but specifically quid pro quo so tesla gives you their patents if you give them yours

you hate the company or the product? How does someone hate a company the open sourced all of their patents which resulted in creating a ton of competition in a previously dominated market?

even if Americans do speak more like the Elizabethan English than today’s Brits themselves

I get the sense that the article very much believes Americans speak more traditional English.

War destroys existing structures and gives them a chance to evolve again.

are you suggesting that destroying things, results in improvement in the long run? I don't know that I could be farther from agreeing with that. If starting from scratch was better, why wouldn't we be doing it voluntarily at frequent intervals? It just seems easily dismissed as entirely incorrect.

The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake.

I don't think this describes the economy, it just describes some of the metrics we use to gauge the health of the economy. burning down the internet and killing everyone that understands it might result in another dotcom boom, but would you say the economy is more healthy than some other reality where the internet continued to exist with no reset and only has smaller incremental gains?

I just don't believe this, not because I have hard data, but it just doesn't make any sense. Sure, the central banks will do everything they can to ignite the economy and everyone will be generally working their hardest to recover from hard times, but how can an economy that gets completely halted to go full bore in war efforts ever hope to generate the wealth of an economy that isn't halted and has been making incremental improvements, uninterrupted?

people don't demand wealth equality after a war, they just create massive inflation during the war and solve it by taking everyone's savings after the war...half the countries in europe post ww2 did something akin to replacing the national currency at exchanges rates of like 10:1 in some cases like germany...and germanys post-war inflation solution is hailed as an 'economic miracle' by many history books. Somethings tells me I wouldn't feel too jazzed about taking 90% of my savings, but I would also be resigned to do whatever because war is worse.

I get really worried when I see people glamorize equality post-war...post-war times are not good times for the middle class. The most equal wealth humanity has ever had is during caveman times, but that is not the goal.

war does not make things better folks, I hope that's not what OP was trying to say, but just in case let's be very very clear about how awful war is for progress and humanity.

being unlawful is a vital tool for people to keep tyranny in check, I would hope that most people are incredibly strong supporters of lawlessness when the laws are wrong. To give an extreme example, I imagine you supported the hiding of jewish people during nazi germanys reign, which means you support unlawful activity as long as it's against laws that are against the people.

Newtonian physics is still settled science even though we have relativity to give more accurate results..

You've proved my entire point in your very first sentence and then go on to say I don't seem to understand how scientific models and theories work.

Nobody believed in geocentrism due to "Science"...

This isn't a serious argument. Feel free to look up the works of Aristotle, who is sometimes called the first scientist.

I don't have the energy to address the rest of your incorrect conjecture.

Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure.

You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.

It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"

Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.

Ironically, it's often attributed to religion that they claim settled truths that can't be proven.

There's no such thing as "settled science". You can not prove that any scientific consensus has no flaws in the same way you can't prove the absence of bugs in any software. It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.

Can we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then.

If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.

Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.

The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.

load isn't what causes degradation, it's heat and as someone who has mined crypto for years I'm aware that there are a lot of things that can be done to run hardware quite hard and keep thermals low. Whether or not that is what is being done, I have no idea. A GPU mining crypto for 5 years kept below 65C (rather easily done) is going to have far more life left than a GPU in some kids gaming PC that spikes frequently to 85C for even a year.

Seems like the news headlines should read "President makes a mistake that benefits crypto grifters, but luckily for the grifters the only blame seems to be attributed to the president because of a single tweet."

I imagine taking the inflation rate (that was growing exponentially) from nearly 300% yearly to less than 3% monthly in less than a year isn't likely to be wildly popular to all the non-crypto grifters.

yeah, that's a reasonable take for sure, but probably worthy of a call out that there are a lot of metrics that go into defining freedom.

Here's an attempt at objectively measuring freedom that has texas ranking as more free than colorado https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Every job in the world is discriminatory if you take the less potent definition of the word. That's why we have job interviews, to explicitly discriminate. I presume you mean "discriminate in a bad way" but given the context I have no idea what that "bad way" is. Outsourcing has costs outside of just the up front payments, that isn't a secret and it has very little to do with technical expertise. Most software driven companies don't fall apart because of poorly implemented algorithms, they are more likely to do so because the humans have a difficult time interfacing in efficient ways and understanding and working towards the same goal together.

You can't just expect people from other countries to communicate as effectively as people who grew up right down the street from each other. Yes, it's objectively discriminatory, but not for hostile reasons.

I'm very skeptical that you're having a hard time sourcing this information. I have pages from my google search with easily 75% of the results confirming my claim.

Either way, here you go:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fac...

"Restrictions are in place exclusively at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the direction of the United States Secret Service," spokesman Lars Dalseide wrote in an email to USA TODAY. He called the claim that the NRA is banning guns at its conference "incorrect."

yet in the US just as many households have reported using drugs as own guns

Australians, for example, don't want guns relative to Americans. It's not hard to ban things people don't want. Prior to 1996 gun laws in Australia, home ownership was like 15%. In the US it's been as high as 45% in recent years. As far as the number of guns owned, we have more guns than people. So yeah, taking a country with 1/3rd the ownership down 75% with regulation that isn't bordered by cartels isn't that shocking to me.

You would never achieve that in the US and that's incredibly obvious to me by looking at the gun crime stats in places that do already have gun control laws in the US.

If you think proper gun laws would keep guns away from evil people in the US, please explain to me why the war against illegal drugs in the US has been losing since the day it started.

Sure, some places in the world can successfully limit gun access. Those places aren't close and even bordered by the most active cartels in the world.

Just as a fun thought exercise, consider that to grow the plant necessary to produce just a single drug, cocaine, for the country, every year. It takes at least 300,000 acres, or roughly the size of los angeles. That's after decades of optimizations to reduce the amount of land needed. It's also only for one drug among a vast number that are regularly consumed in the US.

In relation, you can 3d print guns at home. Successful builds have been made from some of the cheapest 3d printers you can find.

it's interesting to me how easily you can fact check the statement:

Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns.

yet, you claim that it's the late night TV that divides us, while making sure to double down on your misleading statement.

The NRA doesn't "ban guns at their conferences", they have been banned at small parts of a multi-day conferences e.g. where Trump was speaking because that was a rule established by the secret service and they complied for a small part of the conference.

When the majority of a conference allows guns, it's simply a lie to claim that guns were banned. An unintentional lie, I'm sure, but it seems likely to be the result of you believing some headline or tweet and accepting something wholesale as truth because it fit your narrative. I'm guilty of the same, it happens, but hopefully we can both get better about portraying easily fact checked things as the truth.

To play devil's advocate:

That's quite the claim and a bit misleading. Successful businesses have been firing customers forever. I think they intend on insulting users they want to fire.

I don't fully disagree with you, but I don't think it's correct to suggest you can't be successful with the attitude expressed in that article.

Ethics aren't objective anyway, so it's not useful to rely on them. The US prides itself on being a melting pot full of diverse entrepreneurs. Diversity means different sets of ethics, sometimes varying greatly. I'm hopeful the US can get to a place where we expect everyone to agree on ethics and only reward those that operate with american ethics in mind. Which interestingly enough, I find the ethics that america loves to espouse with their words, more often reflects the enacted ethics of many immigrants when compared to the people who have many generations in this country.

I think it's far more fair to say that developers have agreed to let them use their data (that they will use to reduce dev jobs) in exchange for a service that can almost entirely be easily migrated elsewhere.

If you think MS using github code to train AI is bad, let's be pragmatic about where we're putting the blame or there's no shot we can course correct.

I personally am not looking forward to the pain of losing my job, but I would never presume my job is more important than progress. My job wouldn't even exist if we halted progress to save the jobs.

I think you're over-representing just how well opinion surveys can represent the actual will of the people.

To put this in a less politicized analogy, everyone will tell you they want to be rich, but how many people are willing to make sacrifices to become rich? It turns out many rich people today are rich because they didn't have to make very many sacrifices, while most everyone, including minimum wage employees, can become a millionaire. Mathematically it's not all that complex.

People will tell you what they want with some internalized model that isn't representative of the realistic trade-offs that would have to be made. So in effect what people say isn't based in the reality of what they actually want.

As far as marketing goes, I'm not so sure that bankers hold more public trust than techies. It's basically every day a big bank is getting fined as the "cost of doing business" and often for things like laundering money etc.. There's probably a case to be made that techies do more to harm their trust, but probably not from multinational organizations.

I would say it's most people. Just look at how many genuine comments (of course I've seen non-genuine comments as well) getting downvoted here. There are far too many people who deem it unacceptable to state certain opinions and I wouldn't be surprised if people on both sides of the political spectrum read this and confidently presume it's the opinions on the other side that are at fault.

I think you may be romanticizing the past a bit here. I got a Nintendo when it came out too and I never did any of the things you've done. You may have just imagined everyone was behaving in the same way you were, when it's probably just as likely they behaved more like me.