ManFromUranus

>Worst possible outcome is that the oil supply redirects to the developing world and millions of lawn mower style engines are put into high utilization

This is exactly what will happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8PavA4rUypE

I think it's actually elevator mechanic, but I agree with everything you said

>I think Americans are totally done with identity politics based on race, gender, religion, sexuality

I don't see that happening at all, that would be nice, but that's not the general direction. I think things are getting worse as far as that's concerned. Society is polarizing and separating into different groups. At this point it is almost impossible to talk to the "other side" about certain issues. There is MASSIVE distrust of the government and authority that is getting increasing day by day. I think America is becoming a polarized, low-trust society with no common interests and the future looks like regional secession to me. Sub-state entities seceding from other states, states seceding from the greater US etc.

I don't doubt that the phone is going to be a physical implementation of the site's aesthetic, so it will be beautifully unuseable

So that sounds like you're suggesting we just wait until they become mature / developed economies... so just sit on our hands for a 2 or 3 decades maybe.

Like when the polish tried to stop hitlers blitzkrieg with horse drawn artillery and dragoons and whatnot. Didn't work out for them, I feel like thats what the F-35 is, some kind of flying "maginot line" or soemthing like that. It looks good on paper but is functionally useless for future conflict.

Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. Nobody disputes that, the only thing in dispute is whether or not the ends justify the means, meaning is ousting Assad a desirable end that justifies the current proxy war or not.

We already have that occurring right now in Syria, US and its allies are fighting a proxy war for Syria's resources. If the US wins then Israel will likely annex huge swathes of Syrian territory in some kind of "security zone" and begin pumping oil immediately.

If Russia wins, then Syria remains independent and Russia benefits somehow, perhaps with steep discount out for the next 50 years.

I don't think that child pornography falls under speech at all, and I don't see the connection. Child pornography sole purpose is to serve prurient interests.

Sorry I don't mean to say that speech should be a free for all, threats will not be tolerated, nor would harassment, but we already have longstanding laws and procedures to deal with those things, they are nothing new.

"it's pretty clear which voices get silenced. Which voices have been silenced for decades and decades"

I don't think it's clear at all, nobody is currently being silenced, however I can see the pattern of existing laws and policies around harassment and threats being misused to silence political opponents. This is a very bad development, and mostly recent phenomenon. I think as far as thats concerned we have crossed the rubicon so to speak, and the polarization will only accelerate.

"So in practice, somebody will always be silenced on some topics."

I don't agree. Even child pornography can be discussed however children have no agency and can't consent to their images being used in such a way. So it can never be legalized. There are many subjects that cannot be discussed (racial issues, social issues) that are considered by the left to be unmentionable even though points expressed are perfectly respectful and salient.

It cuts both ways though, you can't have your cake and eat it too. A counter example: if I'm the only guy I know that thinks Jim Crow laws are bad and there's nobody around to buck me up, so maybe I consider that there's something wrong with my beliefs.

If you police speech for some people and not others you will create problems, either you think that people are inherently good (therefore everbody should be able to speak until they reveal otherwise) or some kind of top down censorship should be in place to keep things "civil", now the problem is who gets to decide what "civil" is.

So its better and easier and more robust to just let people say what they want to say (even if bad) and just allow people to filter out what they don't want.

The UK government can compel you to give them whatever they want by indirectly acting via the US Govt. They will pressure the US Govt the US Govt will act on you. So even though on paper they can't directly act against you, rest assured, they can. Lets pretend that the US government would not comply with requests to compel you to give them something, you can still be sued or otherwise acted upon in such a way that you would have to expend time / resources to fend off the request / lawsuit or whatever. So to say that the UK Govt can't do anything to you because you don't have any assets there or don't want to go there is kind of silly IMO.

Actually being a slave might be preferable. Slaves had guaranteed room and board and medical care...

>Discrimination based on advocacy of race-based violence does not, it should be noted, fall into any of those protected categories.

I agree but this policy is not applied evenly.

> a business absolutely can refuse service to customers it finds objectionable.

How was the gay wedding cake thing able to progress then?

This same argument could be made for gay couples who want service for their gay wedding. We already set the precedent that a business cannot refuse service for customers it finds objectionable. You are essentially arguing in favor of the christian bakery refusing the gay wedding cake. So I don't think you can have it both ways, you either force people to do business with those you find objectionable or you dont.

Effort is irrelevant though, if they spend their effort on something that could never succeed or is useless or irrelevant to the market then their effort should obviously fail and it is not unfair. So it matters a lot what they choose to apply effort to. Generally life is an IQ test and rewards those who make optimal choices WRT events in their life.

With that spin, sure it would seem that way. You might consider it "Warfare" if the poor were being forced to smoke, or say there weren't pictures of cancer on the cover of the packages of cigarettes, or minors were allowed to smoke or there wasn't a huge vice tax on cigarettes essentially everywhere in the world, and a ban on cigarette advertising in most countries then yeah if you ignore all of that you might consider it class warfare...

To supplement the person you are replying to post, in Canada, the same goods and services are more expensive AND your money is worth 30% less than the US Dollar. So if you were able to move to the US and get a job that paid THE EXACT SAME SALARY, you would STILL be better off because good and services you consume would be cheaper AND you pay less overall tax.

Do you consider it a solution that if somebody doesn't like an OSS project's current direction, or contributor list, they could fork it and do whatever they want with the fork?

>I think the poster is holding a pretty untenable position but I'm trying to softball it, because I could be much harsher about it.

I don't understand how that position is untenable. It seems to be a meritocratic line of thought, IMO. There could be a problem with how "merit" is calculated? Or you believe that ideas, contributions which have merit are denied / ignored because of the gender/ethnicity of the contributor?

>Identical people come to similar conclusions. Folks who have raised this idea of "diversity of thought" think that it adequately addresses this idea that diversity is a value add for software by saying, "Well it's all about thought." But those initial conditions our minds are so sensitive to are not easily ignored.

I don't know what is being said here. Are you saying that women or people of color would implement software differently from a white male? How would writing an encryption app differ if a women wrote it? You seem to think that there is something being missed by the Poster you are replying to but I can't figure out what it is exactly.

I disagree, just ask the manufacturing industry how well unions work. They worked well at getting employers to relocate their production facilities.

I think it does since MS did a big overhall on their windows architecture, phone, xbox, and desktop all run the same base services just with different GUI's. Technically an XBOX could make phone calls but has no GUI or hardware for it.

Oh that's pretty interesting, I didn't know that. So I guess it kind of comes with real windows after all (in a roundabout way)

I agree with your take, many will not see improved security as a benefit but will instead resent the limited functionality. This is nothing more than a rebranded Windows RT which already failed in the market with the Surface RT. IMO this laptop will also fail, regardless of whatever hardware they pair it with

Quite the opposite he is proposing people decide for themselves absent any "workshops". You are the one who thinks that people will benefit from Googles instruction on how to decide what is hate speech, frankly I think anyone should be able to say anything. If you decide that its hateful content then you can stop reading it at that point.

The FBI already builds watch-lists, how is this news? You're employer can already get a background check on you (even without your knowledge or consent I'm pretty sure).

Lets be honest here, nobody is getting arrested for protesting Trump, they are getting arrested for property destruction, assault, blocking public throughfares (hows the ambulance or firetruck supposed to get through?)

There are so many legitimate reasons to arrest these people, this comment is is just pure fear mongering.

IMO Microsoft will never bring WPF to any other platform but windows. Core CLR (and web GUIs) are what will be available on other platforms. I think that WPF will always remain a windows thing. For that matter WPF is not even getting developed much on Windows and is largely left as it is in favor of putting their effort into web technologies and CoreCLR

I use the internet and don't often encounter things I didn't expect. Usually what I see on a board, or forum, or sub-reddit etc is the material I expect to see there. Occasionally I see spam or something. Generally the community is probably capable of policing itself on most boards if you give them the tools, downvoting / flagging or something like that.

The crux of the problem is, if the internet remains free then it is also free to "fail". If you can only post lollipops and cat pictures guaranteed not to offend then the internet would contain almost nothing. Comments on such an internet would be so milquetoast as to be not worth reading in the first place.

You can already filter out almost 90% of the content you don't want to see by simply going to certain websites / forums and not others.

Isn't reddit already the paid version of reddit?

The embedded powers will be happy if Trump succeeds? The same "embedded powers" who tried to block him from even running on the GOP ticket? Whom he then had to threaten to run independent to let him into the primaries? The same embedded powers who've been attacking him from both sides of the media (left and right) since he announced he would run?

I have no idea how you people come to these conclusions. I mean, if I watched more mainstream media and believed everything I was told, I suppose I can see how you would come to these sorts of conclusions. I can assure you they are wrong. I mean the CIA is against Trump and is trying to de-legitimize his election after the fact. Are those the "embedded powers" who will be happy if he succeeds? Who are you even talking about? The only ones on Trumps side are probably half the GOP, and the people, that's it, everybody else is against him.

There is the matter that, even if these Trump supporters provided facts you wouldn't believe those facts anyway. You would attribute the facts they provided to different causes and interpret them in your own way to suit your world view. It's really a waste of time talking to each other. I've spent plenty of time arguing with people on the left. Facts and figures and citations stored on my phone (TO SHOW PEOPLE IRL) and all for nothing. Complete waste of time. The only thing that made a difference was arguing with a liberal friend about diversity. I was able to point out that he lives in the whitest building in the whitest part of the city. So harping on about diversity is hypocritical because when he had time to put his money where his mouth is he did the opposite (he is white). That was the only thing that even made him pause to think for a second. In my experience, no amount of facts, no amount of well meaning discussion has any point. Nobody on the left will agree with you, they won't see your point, they willfully choose to misunderstand your points, they misrepresent your arguments when they repeat them back to you. It is a futile waste of time to talk to each other. The issue will eventually be decided the way all such fundamental irreconcilable disagreements are decided, might will make right in the end.