Fargren

Is there? To me the terms are interchangeable. I tried googling for it and I can't find any clear distinction. Can you tell me what is the difference?

> So I need to read all ~30,000 pages of Zizek before forming an opinion. Or at least a negative opinion. Wonderful system you've developed.

You can do whatever you want. But commenting on the entire bibliography when you have read less than 2.5% of it seems premature. Just say that everything you've read of him lacks substance rather than everything he wrote?

No, you did not claim that. You said that the reason "society optimize for how easy it is to start a business" is that "new companies create jobs" which leads to the safety net.

That implies that making it easier top start a business is a requirement for the safety net; after all, you wrote that funding for the safety net is the reason creating companies should be made easy.

It follows that wherever there is funding for a safety net, businesses are easy to start. So how come that in Europe businesses are -allegedly- so hard to start, but there is a strong social safety net?

TL;DR: Europe is proof that it's possible to have a certain level of regulation to business while still having enough successful businesses to fund a strong social safety net.

You make it sound like having ease to start companies leads to a better social security net. Easier to start companies -> more companies -> more taxes -> safety net.

Sounds credible in theory, but the reality is that despite it being harder in the EU than the US to start a company, the safety net is much stronger in the EU. So there must be something wrong in that theory.

I understand this is hyperbole, but people do a lot worse things than automated fraud, if we are looking for reason to send someone to hell...

Wouldn't that be moving the goalpost? They are rich now (by their definition, which happens to be mine also). Many people stop being rich. Doesn't mean they weren't so in the first place.

This might just be different customs of language usage. But to me, if you say "This is a subset of That", you are saying "every case of This is also a case of That". I suppose you are using it to mean "That does not imply This", and honestly I don't think seen it used that way elsewhere.

That would imply all sexual exclusive relationships are healthy, which is very much not the case. Sexual exclusivity and relationship health are orthogonal.

Anything by Satoshi Kon is great, and in line with what you've been watching. If I had to pick, Perfect Blue for movies and Paranoia Agent for series.

In the lighter more children spectrum, Mamoru Hosoda does beautiful things like Summer Wars or The Girl Who Leapt Through Time.

The Tatami Galaxy is another great one

You are reading the title as "Why animals don't ever get lost". That's one way to read the title. It can also be interpreted as "Why animals don't often get lost", or in other words, "What mechanisms do animals use to avoid getting lost." Which is an interesting question.

I'm pretty sure in most systems I use, processing time is not deterministic and it depends on what else the system is doing at the time and it's temperature, among other factor of which the progress bar won't be aware.

A progress bar will usually present the "expected" duration of several operations, [almost] none of which have a deterministic duration, or a deterministic ratio from one to the other. The best we can do is put heuristics in place to estimate how long the operations will take. We have some choices, such as estimating the total time or estimating each sub-operation separately. We can even use AI for the estimation, if we want to get fancy. But the problem is not tractable, and we'd rather given estimates where we can that just use spinners everywhere.

By that argument, libraries and resellers are "stealing".

It's only stealing if the person who's being stolen from no longer has something they used to have. Potential things can't be stolen.

"Your home" means the place where you live. It's not the same as "your house", which is a building that you own. Evicting a renter is kicking someone out of their home.

The search can still show ads that are relevant to my search terms, right?

The issue is that you said what bothers you about social media is "the sheer size of the population", but I would say the size of the population is what makes it social media. It's akin to saying I like cars except for the fact they move faster than a person. You could technically have something called social media that has low populations, but it would be so functionally different from the actual thing that using the same name becomes questionable.

There are many things to answer to here, but let me pick at least a few

> As for programming, maybe you don't care about your IP, but your company sure does.

I don't think they do. The software I write is used by workers in my company's warehouse. It's valuable because it makes their job easier. Sure, we don't give the software away, but we also don't sell it. We would lose very little if we released it for free. I know this doesn't apply to all software, but it applies to a sizable amount of it. It would be interesting to measure which fraction of time spent writing software is for projects like this, I don't know how to even begin estimating it.

> Sure you could set up a book-writing company like you could now but where would the money for those salaries come from?

Some ideas, in no particular order. Asa I said before, maybe reduces the amount of books that get written, but can't say for sure.

-Preorders. The publisher commits to only releasing a book once it has received X orders for it. GMT does this for boardgames.

-Patreon-like model, or plain subscriptions. Customers commit to paying for whatever is released, or just pay periodically and the publisher/author commits to releasing stuff that makes customers happy.

-Making nice editions: this could get very competitive, but surely a publisher who makes nice editions would still sell them. The publisher would be incentivized to pay popular authors to create books so it has more stuff to sell, even if other people could make other editions.

Not only have we been fully WFH in the EU, in many areas we were not allowed to leave our homes except for groceries, for extremely long periods of time. I live in Madrid, this went on from March 30 to May 2 (I'm having trouble finding the exact dates, as they are not the same for every region in Spain, so we might have been locked down a bit longer than this).

After that, there were very rigid limitation about at what times we were allowed outside and at what times. At the beginning we were not allowed to be further than 1KM from our house, and only from 06:00 to 10:00 and from 20:00 to 23:00.

Copyright law has existed for only a few centuries, and people created art and science before it, as careers, for the entirety of human history. These jobs would be a lot different without IP law. They might be payed less and be done less, or maybe not. If they are payed less, it's true probably they wouldn't be as prolific. But they would still exist, it's disingenuous to claim IP law is a requirement for creative endeavors.

As a matter of fact, programming already works as if IP law didn't exist from the point of view of many programmers.I'm hired by a company to produce a product, in exchange for a salary. I don't know any IP that I might produce as a result of my work. I'm simply paid for my time. Could (as an example) novel writers be payed for the time spent writing a book rather than as a function of the sales of their books? I see not logistical reason why not. Maybe the market won't bear many writers under those conditions... But they would still exist, right?

Note: I think Trademark law is really good. And patents have issues but they are mostly good. I'm only talking about copyright here. I'm not entirely against the concept of IP, but I do think copyright law is not nearly as critical as it's made out to be. Maybe the optimal solution is weak copyright rather than no copyright, but I think it's important to understand that no copyright is not as crazy as it sounds.

You can move in a wrong direction without moving backwards. I agree progress is not the correct word here, the correct term is probably "change". Restricting Free Speech inhibits change, whether good or bad (it doesn't completely stop it either, obviously).

They had their day(s) in court. They were heard out. There were recounts. What else would have been needed? Was there any amicable resolution that didn't involve Trump getting elected? If the alternatives are Trump is elected or there is violence, this is not democracy.

Not the OP. I found the Palatino ruins to be extremely impressive, and the Colosseum to be a "just a bunch of rubble". It's just not a good looking building, and the areas that are open don't let you see anything that I found particularly interesting. It's big, and well built, and it's interesting how similar it is to a modern day stadium. But it's just a stadium. Vising the Forum and the temples on the other hand has fascinating, and made think about how life in antiquity would have been.

People seriously believe being advertised at is "just as much a negative" as the stigma from being a porn actress? I have no appreciation for the advertising industry, but this is hard for me to believe.

If your parent are EU citizens, and the EU 'is it's citizens' (which is controversial but defensible) then yes, the EU did create you.

I'll concede that defining freedom is a thorny subject, and there are limitations to the definition a I proposed. But I think that any definition of freedom that doesn't accept that private individuals can (and constantly do) limit each other's freedom regardless of the state is just as flawed.

That is a very narrow definition of freedom. For a simple example of freedom being taken away without state involvement: a person who (illegally) locks up another person is absolutely taking away another person's freedom.

This idea that only freedom from the state counts is very pernicious, and it's at the root of the inordinate power corporations have in today's world.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want. Any conditions that don't let you do what you want are restraints on your freedom, even if they are being enforced by a private company.

In Germany displays of Nazi symbols are forbidden, as well as any political expression that incites violence against a specific race or religion. I can readily believe than in an alternative reality where they were not forbidden, the Nazi movement would be alive and well (not that there is absolutely no Nazis in Germany, but I bet there would be many more, and in power, were it not for suppression and censorship)

I've never been in a zero-visibility blizzard, but I assume you also wouldn't drive at that point.

Because we are talking about an EU/US comparison, I'll nit pick this: salaried doesn't have to mean what it means in the US. I, like salaried workers in many (all?) European countries have a contract that says how many hours I have to work per week.

We were not deemed worthy.

The way I see it, if the company wants you to do something you would not do if not for their asking (i.e. moving) it makes sense to ask for compensation, and the compensation should be commensurate to how onerous what they want is. I would expect a relocation bonus even if moving from a high cost of living area to a low cost of living area, if moving was requested by the company.

On the other hand, if I want to do something because it is convenient for me but does not affect my work in any way (i.e. change where I work from) I would not expect my compensation to change.