As a friend of many of the people in the original thread, I find it hilarious that the New Republic assumes they're all 'teens', especially when one has an icon in which he's holding his child.
If you use StartSSL, and then down the line they go well and truly rogue, browser vendors will have to consider ceasing to trust StartSSL in future releases. If your site is popular, it will be one more reason for them not to do that, which would leave their users less safe. If they do decide to untrust StartSSL, this will break your site.
The argument about exposure is a general argument against home ownership. If you own a home in Detroit and work for Ford, you are doubly exposed to the region's financial health. If you live in Houston and work for an oil company you are doubly exposed. This is why I think home ownership is overrated. We should be looking for policies that enable people to adapt to changing economic situations, even if that means moving from place to place, and home ownership (which we heavily incentivize in the US) actively hampers that.
It sounds to me like this will not work if I actually power down my device before the attacker gets their hands on it, is that correct? (I tend to power down my phone before going through TSA lines, for example)
As a programmer I am in the job-destruction business. I think a society with fewer jobs and more automation can be a better society for everyone provided we simultaneously shift in the direction of more of a social safety net for the unemployed and hopefully a UBI. But right now a lot of people are very frightened by that job destruction and they're not totally wrong to be. It is causing a lot of short-term suffering, and a lot of people blame us.
Let's not start calling the people we unemploy "meatbags", ok?
> No leftie is arguing or longing for any of these policies. What we're looking for is just more equality in economic opportunities and esp capital and that distribution of capital to be more fair across all the classes and not to be a privilege only for rich and highly connected people.
> That's how we envision the solution to fix this problem of "fragmentation" as he put when it exactly is more like a "segregation" problem but not based on racial or cultural factors but on economic one into two completely separate societies between the haves and have-nots, between the 1% and the 99% of the population and it's getting worse and uglier by the day.
This kinda reads like word salad to me -- I have absolutely no idea what concrete policy changes it's meant to imply.
So pg predicts that hackers are going to hate Java. Hackers mostly hate Java. Because of this, pg predicts Java will be unsuccessful. Java's actually pretty successful. This is kind of sobering. Possibly we overestimate the social influence of hackers.
If you look at the history of human evolution, this doesn't make sense. Evolution was very very slowly increasing human intelligence by, e.g., making our skulls bigger. Then we got to the point where we could use language/transmit knowledge between generations/etc. and got up to technological, spacefaring civilization in, evolutionarily speaking, no time whatsoever. This is not a story which suggests that human intelligence is some sort of maximum, or that evolution was running into diminishing returns and so stopped at human intelligence. It suggests that human intelligence is the minimum intelligence necessary to produce the kind of generational transfer that gets you up to technological civilization.
This...sounds incredibly naive? They seem to think that AI risk comes from Bad People doing AI? There's not one mention given to the possibility of well-intentioned people destroying the world by accident.
Yes, this. I've often thought that in terms of long-term strategy, pro-housing groups should focus on getting rental housing built, and leave owner-occupied condos alone.
I think this is poorly written. I don't object to him calling it "command-line bullshittery" in his title, but doing it over and over again in the article is excessive. We get it. You don't like it. You aren't going to convince us not to like it by naming it with the same obscenity 500 times.
At risk of reductio ad hitlerum -- at the time Jefferson wrote the quote given in the article, the wisdom of the rural folk was that slavery was awesome and should continue forever. It was the out-of-touch urban interlopers who thought it should stop
> Lawn reformists are generally proponents of converting yards over to less resource intensive alternatives like drought tolerant plants or native plants species.
Or we could just build the houses closer together in the first place.
Sure, but on the other hand, downloading a tarball for every minor release means you're redownloading a lot of code. Depending on how much churn there is, you may save bandwidth in the long run by keeping a clone and updating as you go.
Yeah, you're not wrong. In particular, the fact that the SFMTA isn't cooperating with the part of the program that's just supposed to make paying the tickets easier is kind of damning. I'd like to think that better technology could make enforcement cheaper, more consistent, and thus drive down penalties, but there are enough rent-seeking bastards involved to give me pause there.
I get where you're coming from. Police departments enforcing the rules not to better the community they serve but to bring in money to pay their salaries. It pisses me off too. The thing is, free parking fucks up cities[0][1]. It makes driving seem like a better idea than it is. It encourages sprawl. We need ways for people to pay for the space their cars occupy, and that means we need ways to punish people who take that space and don't pay. And, yeah, that means we need parking tickets.
I think "we’ll have a process in place to address technology that could be dangerous" is a pretty strong hint, but it would apply about equally well to AI or nuclear, which are already the top guesses in this thread.