xkemp

The only thing more boring than government work are tired lazy stereotypes accusing government employees of incompetence/lazyness/wastefulness.

Despite your (and many others in this thread) assertion, this is fundamentally new because it hasn't previously been done in political campaigns in any meaningful scale.

The mere existence of a few private campaigns of the sort doen't diminish how much of a departure this is with what has previously been considered acceptable in the political realm.

If we assume that the widespread every-politician-is-corrupt cynicism goes along with/is rooted in a wish to see less corruption, you are also applying rather harmful tactics: by claiming everyone plays dirty, any differences between the candidates are erased, and so are any incentives to behave ethically. The cynicism is self-fulfilling: politicians only ever getting superficial accusations with no discernable relation to their actual behaviour will soon stop trying, because why bother?

No, it wouldn't help.

The typical scenario is Comcast asking "startup X" for money to allow them to reach you.

You wouldn't have to pay more, nor would you necessarily notice: established sites would be exempt because customers expect them to work. But nobody will be missing a new company they have never heard of.

Since you will not (immediately) feel the impact, there will be no incentive for you to chose a different ISP.

Conversely, that startup doesn't get a choice: your ISP is the only route to get to you, and they have to pay or forfeit the chance to do business with you.

ISPs would be in a position to claim the vast majority of any internet-based business' profits. As a data-intensive startup, you would also be faced with the prospect of negotiating contracts with every single significant ISP. You'd get to make decisions such as "should we fire ten people, or go dark in Florida for the rest of the month?"

None of that has anything to do with NN.

NN is when you can't get to "Social Media Startup X" because they didn't pay your ISP.

You are unlikely to even notice this, because only newcomers would be required to pay ransom. Blocking existing sites would lead to customer complaints and actual competition.

It's somewhat unlikely that there are X ISPs times Y "established players" = a few hundred contracts at least, without any of those arrangements leaking, nor anything showing up in network analyses.

That's not a scenario net neutrality regulation would affect. Larger companies will always have more resources, and with that they will have opportunities to invest in infrastructure and improve service that smaller competitors cannot match. There's a continuum from "choosing a more expensive cloud provider" to CDNs to these edge caches.

A single pipe can only handle so many providers

A single pipe can handle only so many customers. I don't see how it limits the number of providers?

There actually are countriess with such rules, and they seem to work well. The difficult part is the need to set some uniform price providers must pay for that "last mile" connection to their customer. I seem to remember something like $8/month in Germany. That's actually low enough, it would allow healthy competition even if you set wholesale price 50% higher than neccessary.

The same mechanism is used for competition among power and natural gas companies.

I believe people arguing "politeness" are missing the point, though. What I most value is "dialectics" (not sure if that term is commonly used in English).

I. e. the willingness to entertain the best argument against your position in good faith. Two people who are excellent in doing so (and familiar to HN) would be Scott Alexander of slatestarcodex, and Matt Levine at Bloomberg.

(Someone rather bad at it, usually arguing against some caricature of what he imagines his opposition to be, and generally tending towards the "either unactionable, obvious, or wrong" end of the spectrum is, well, Paul Graham.)

It would have been impossible for Greece's GDP to drop by that amount (in absolute terms) before it joined the EU. Because it quadrupled after joining.

Here, check out this graph, which rather obviously shows the benefit of joining the EU in 1981: https://www.google.com/search?q=greece+gdp&oq=greece+gdp&aqs...

People in this thread seem to mostly not even consider the value that the ability to (sometimes) speak privately has.

As an analogy: would you want your spouse (and vice versa) to hear recording of every conversation you have, including those with close friends/therapists/rabbis etc?

It's not completely absurd to say yes to that question. But it's notable that such a relationship would be a departure from established norms, and that most people feel even healthy and strong relationships profit from the ability to occasionally seek advice or blow of steam in confidentiality.

Oh, that old chestnut. The believe that other countries are bound by what you promised local voters.

I'd quip that politicians making that argument could just as well legislate for good weather. But considering Greece, I'm now wondering if they may have already done that. In which case I owe them an apology.

That's an extremely one-sided point-of-view.

The net effect of the whole saga was Greece getting to spend a lot of money in the 90s and 2000s, and the stronger countries of the Eurogroup ending up paying for (at least part) of that.

Focussing on these countries' motivation is somewhat useless speculation, and arguably unfair if you manage to twist it so far around the people paying end up as the bad guys, and the people spending as the victims.

In any case: French and German banks could have absorbed a Greek default, although it would have been painful. Because these banks held only part of the debt[0], it would have always been cheaper to make them whole again and tell Greece to take a hike.

Considering a decade has passed and some things happen, one might also want to reevaluate the motivations ascribed to, for example, Angela Merkel. Does she still strike people as incapable of aiming higher than just immediate parochial needs?

[0]: around 30% IIRC, can't be bothered to look this stuff up again ten years later)

Please don't use "third-world" as a generic insult for countries.

Even the wrong-yet-common definition of "poor" doesn't fit here, because internet censorship isn't a function of wealth: Saudi Arabia is rather rich yet unfree. Russia and China area also not "third world".

Russia, a leading internet censor, actually happens to be the (current version of) a country that used to be the definition of either "first" or "second" world.

Just look at the ugly violence of nationalistic hatred currently gripping, oh I don't know.. let's say India?

If that's too much recursion, consider the World War I and II (among many others), both being based essentially in nationalism.

I'm starting to believe this meme was really concocted by some of those "big companies". It's quite brilliant, actually: using the public's hatred of big corporation to actively protect them against any changes.

established multinational corporations

money being extracted from local economies

the coffers of the ultra-rich

For someone complaining about "environmental debt", a term I have never seen before, you do use a lot of tired phrases.

I also don't quite believe that international shipping is quite as amendable to scrappy little startups with little money as you make it out to be?

other than ostensibly environmental protection

Yes, the benefit of the proposed scheme is environmental protection, and therefore it is no surprise that you identify it as it's primary benefit ("ostensibly" being a meaningless qualifier used to vaguely dismiss the idea without feeling the need to argue the point).

Both the principle as well as the mechanisms are well established. Car insurance comes to mind, or really any liability insurance.

An insurance scheme would, in fact, significantly lower the capital requirements compared to straight-up bonds, in the same way that you don't have to put up a million $ to get that amount of coverage for your car.

actual implementation in practice

Require insurance against environmental damage caused by any vessel. Deny entry to foreign vessels not complying.

A union is run rather democratically. It will tend to reflect the attitudes of its membership, i. e. your coworkers. In some old industry on a downward slope, employees will tend to be older and risk-averse, and so will the union. Tech Unions will tend to be rather different.

Don't get hung up on this concept of "union". Look around the office and imagine what you and the ten people you see might want to ask from management.

It could be "no open-plan offices", or maybe it's better options for working remotely, budget for conferences, free choice of OS, whatever...

So I guess we should take the overwhelming majority in this threat rejecting the idea of democratizing private companies, and the at least skeptical attitude towards unions as indication that both are likely to be good ideas.

Not if there's a warrant out for your arrest, no.

It's sad to see this conspiracy theory being voted to the top.

For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims".

Great! I'll just run a forum on "everything chess that isn't trolling, bullying, or flamewars".

Your relationship with both your sister and Apple users seems to mainly consist of condescension. For your sister, there's some added dependency: of course she's eventually gonna fold if she wants you to do tech support and you more or less make it a requirement that you get to make her decisions forthwith.

FWIW the stereotype of Apple targeting "beginners" who are after "fashion items" is ridiculous. There are millions of "professionals" using Macs. It's a fully functional Unix with a GUI that gets out of way.

Pick any project you consider excellent, and you'll find someone working on it that uses a Mac, even the Linux Kernel. Now, try to argue against that person's reasons, not some figment of your imagination rendered into a sack of stereotypes.

i believe OP would, for example, want to start training locally just to check for errors, then do the run somewhere remote.

Synchronizing local and remote code shouldn't take much time, but it's still at least a few seconds on the critical path for the run->fail->fix->rerun loop.

VSCode's remote mode might be a worth a try for people with such a setup.

How can there still be people writing these yearly "I'm so disappointed" articles. It's the same for every single MacOS release. I bet if I look through the archives here, the last halfway usable OS release from Apple was Mac OS 8.

You'd figure the people writing these articles wold leave for other platforms, and those that remain should be less likely to do hot-take duty next year, considering they didn't feel the need to this year?

Unless there's constant renewal in the pool of people-with-something-to-say. I guess today's worst-MacOS-ever is their future good-old-days-of-quality.

It still aptly demonstrate the ability of the UK to shoot itself in the foot. Nobody believes that this necessary reflects badly on any individual British citizen. Unfortunately, in a democracy it only takes the barest of majorities to make bad decisions.

But to cheer you up: it's still better than in the US, where it's entirely possible to screw the country with slightly less than a majority (or even plurality).

Predicting with All-Caps confidence that autonomous driving is "decades away" is at least as indefensible as overly optimistic predictions were.

This is said the other way around at least as often. As in: the high price of Apple Hardware is only worth it because it's a requirement to get MacOS.

And I'm willing to admit that there have been more annoyances in the OS. But having recently tried Windows and Linux again for the first time in over a decade, I can report that nothing much has changed in their relative standings. Just the Windows Activation process alone is a crime against customers. System settings/Utilities/etc are some abomination of cruft accumulated over decades, in a conglomerate of interfaces that seem to try to emulate websites, and sometimes actually are websites that somehow make changes to your system.

I've been using a "Hackintosh" desktop for the last five years, and once it was set up, it has worked flawlessly. That includes all the hardware except the Intel Bluetooth, which was replaced by a tiny dongle that came with something or other. Even the yearly major update has never been a problem. It's far less hassle than my last Linux-on-Desktop attempts, even though Apple isn't even trying.

So that would seem to be evidence against your theory that Apple is concerned about people running MacOS on generic hardware. While some cryptographic hardware would indeed be needed to reliably prevent such shenanigans, I'm somewhat certain they could sabotage such systems with minimal effort and raise the pain to levels where it's just not worth it.

They don't even bother to, say, check the CPU and refuse to run on AMD. That could probably be done in a single line of sourcecode. Not doing anything like that and instead designing custom silicone just isn't rational behaviour.

You seem to be joking, but isn't that pretty much the SQ? Not universally, but there is a lot of clothing incorporating high-viz features. Most prominent in children's clothes and work clothes, but I've seen reflective material that is almost invisible during daytime being used in business coats, apparently with an eye towards bankers on bikes and the like.

Ah, the self-anointed "Brave" browser, that believes what humanity really needs is a middleman between publishers and readers, skimming off the ad revenue.