794CD01

Right, that's the problem. The fact that doctors must ask for the consent of people who don't understand what they are consenting to.

The idea itself isn't that controversial - age of majority laws for contracts, voting, and even medical treatment clearly acknowledge the idea that some people are too young to know what they are agreeing to, so the decision should be made by someone else who takes responsibility for them (most things), or there should be no decision because there doesn't need to be one (voting).

We just need to refine our understanding to reflect the reality that as old as you may get, you will never understand some things.

It would be interesting to compare that against the horrible things people do because they do have autonomy.

Autonomy isn't a meaningful principle when it comes to medicine. Even patients who are doctors can't really give informed consent since they won't necessarily be knowledgeable in the specialty relevant to their treatment. And the vast majority of patients aren't doctors.

Being distributed is really more of a 00s concept anyway. It makes total sense that distributed systems would be replaced with more centralized ones as the internet itself goes through a similar transition.

Sally is traditionally short for Sarah, though if someone with a longer name like Salvadora/Salvatoria were living in an anglophone society, I could also see them going by Sally.

Your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The US prison system is not intended to rehabilitate anyone, and does not do so. Usually, criminals are even worse when they are released due to the time they've spent with other hardened criminals, being abused, forming criminal connections, and learning how to do crime more effectively.

As a result, it's perfectly rational to track those people and be wary of them.

The restitution angle is at least an argument, but treating the system as transactional in the sense that you break the balance by committing a crime then pay it back through slave work in jail is perhaps one of the few ways to make the system even more dysfunctional than it already is.

Not having firsthand experience as a person who is someone in the Chinese government apparatus, it sounds like it should be possible to just pay the tax you owe. But hey, maybe that kind of thinking is why I have no political power.

If you stick to walking, why even bother to track you? You're not going very far from your house that way. If you board a plane, rent a car, etc, you get tracked.

Is there anyone who the Chinese government punished for tax evasion who turned out to be not cheating on their taxes? Selective enforcement is one thing. Fabricating charges is worse.

Ad blocking doesn't eliminate ads, it just forces advertisers to astroturf rather than labelling their ads explicitly.

Examples of what not being true? You jumped from "people" to "regimes" between paragraphs but the transition wasn't complete.

If you are looking for examples of people who aren't part of an authoritarian regime but still think it's not a fundamentally immoral system, just take myself. If you are looking for authoritarian regimes that satisfy some quality, I can't tell what quality you're referring to.

People accept that deal when they have a very strong guarantee that their $100 will still be worth $100 at the end of the term. Combining the low yields of bonds (let's be honest, your numbers are chosen for their roundness, not their realism) with the low safety of stocks is the worst of both worlds.

Not everyone thinks authoritarianism is morally wrong. They already abet plenty of other things that some people find morally wrong, like enforcing IP law, censoring all kinds of information, cooperating with police investigations, etc, some of which you can already spin as authoritarian.

As is what you say. We choose to do that because we live in a society that pressures people to value having jobs over having rights. And there aren't enough jobs to go around because technology has made production so efficient.

Checkbox seems unlikely, but this would be a reasonable way to distinguish between the "home" version of the OS for normies and the "premium" version for power users.

If that argument were compelling, shareholders would do that. They aren't in it just to spite workers.

>They don't ask the publisher from that other country to modify the contents.

They shouldn't rely on this as their only option, but they may as well ask. If the publisher complies it saves everyone a lot of bother.

I think it's a realistic one. Is the integrity of your votes more important to you than your bank account? Or your medical history? It's not to me.

Facebook forbids them to learn something about Facebook. It was the phone's fault when they didn't limit what data Facebook pulled from it. Modern ones do just that.

Why not? You just need to have a cursory knowledge of how little elections and security actually matter. We already use computers to manage our finances, social lives, and health. If they get hacked they get hacked. Life goes on.

Fake cakes provide themed decoration, just like the fancy lace curtains or floral centerpieces that are also common at weddings. It's basically the exact same reasoning you gave for knockoff clothes.

I don't see how it makes sense to copy a strategy that loses money when someone else is already following that strategy and going broke due to all the money they're paying you.

It's called the Duck Hunt principle.

Maybe we'll know 50 years after everyone involved is dead. As your own article points out, the senators certainly had the power to hold the CIA accountable. The fact that they did not do so despite making angry noises in public can only be properly responded to with the thinking face emoji.

A downside of constantly electing dirty politicians.

The spying agencies are as accountable as any other agencies. They do what they do at the behest of the public's elected representatives.

The comment was about the bad grammar in the plan description, not the substance of the plan itself.

Really? Chinese investors sound like exactly the people who would most want a secure private VPN.

I think you are imagining the argument you want to see. Your comment is not responsive to what I actually wrote.

Indeed. You are free to modify it to run those tools, or create alternate tools that do run (maybe not so much after Oracle v Google). But ain't nobody got time for that.