dinom

Lol, fair enough.

Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization?

Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.

Rest assured that next time I'm arrested for trespassing I won't be calling you for legal advice.

Depends what you mean by easiest.

You can also use ffmpeg to create a "screencast" with sound and it's just a couple of extra command-line options. E.G. the options

  -f pulse -ac 2 -i default

work well for me.

Of course, if you don't know this or your machine's setup well, and you happen to have another device lying around, you're prone to pick it up and make the video that way instead.

Which may be harder because then you have to get the video off the other device somehow. Lol, epistemology is an interesting field.

Is Facebook the public square all of a sudden? I thought it was a private company.

"Printing money" makes it sound like an education was manifested out of thin air.

Semantically, I think cancelling student debt is much more of a "transfer payment".

This sounds like burning the candle at both ends and I can't help but think the attitude is counter-productive.

That is, if a gasoline powered engine is actually less expensive, why not drive the gas engine and invest or donate the savings towards alternative energy initiatives? That way EVs (and alternative energy in general) can flourish and become unequivocally better.

Good article.

It reminds me that the so-called "observer effect" prevents a debugging and testing environment from reflecting production perfectly. However, there's certainly a balance which must dictate the degree to which the QA process is relied upon.

Given that OK-Cupid is a dating app meant for "fun", I'm not surprised that the testing environment was somewhat loose and informal. However, as the author alludes, when the consequences of failure ramp up... testing and QA become absolutely indispensable.

IMHO, the trick is being able to mirror as much as possible between the QA and production environments... and then determining when to deploy. This needs a fair bit of experience, subject matter expertise, and of course luck. You can never discount luck.

I don't dispute that. But, I don't think owning the title means the car needs to be fully operational.

Titles to ratty, broken down, cars are bought and sold every day... aren't they? And, just because it's shiny doesn't mean it's a great car either. It could be a great sculpture.

I think the issues at play here are more about service and warranty contracts as well as buyer expectations. Having the title just means I own a giant hunk of metal and plastic, no?

What about satellite? What if the ping isn't time based but mileage based... what are the odds you drive 500-1000 miles without passing a cell-site? The car doesn't have to go completely dead either. It can go into a "limp mode" or just have features disabled.

Going back and forth with measures and counter-measures besmirches the point. Cars have to be serviced and this may be considered just another aspect of it.

I'm not suggesting that this sort of thing is necessarily a good thing(tm) but, it may be viewed as such by some and it's possible.

Isn't it the consumer's prerogative and responsibility to decide?

Not to mention, lawsuits and PR nightmares can be factored into a business case analysis. VW actually went ahead and defrauded the US government in diesel-gate and they're still an almost $100 billion company.

I do know that. But...

Assuming you can even get to the antenna without special tools... you're just going to cut the antenna so short that the radio can't get a signal? On a hunch?

What if the SOC in your vehicle has to download a rolling encryption key every week in order to activate?

Could be. That said... the sensor is generally referred to as a "tire pressure" sensor, not a "wheel pressure" sensor. No sense in nit-picking though.

The point is they'd put a fart detector in the cabin (and send that data to the mother-ship too) if they thought it would be profitable.

:-)

Why not the tires? New cars come with tire pressure sensors and tire pressure plays a big role in fuel efficiency as well as safety. It's just a few more bits of info.

Anything that has a remote chance of making more profit than the competitor will be attempted. Even if it's morally questionable... moral != legal. Heck, VW even threw legality out the window with emissions shenanigans a few years ago.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong or right... it's just the entrepreneur's duty to try and the consumer's obligation to keep things in check.

Caveat emptor.

I didn't make any of that up.... have you ever removed an onstar unit from a vehicle? Did you ever try to install linux on an xbox360?

Radios these days are software defined. They can sit on the same chip that uses a trusted bootloader and also provides an engine control module. Marketing departments can and will bend and pervert engineering specifications to highlight the consumer benefits and minimize the profit motive.

QED

You're making terrible assumptions here. The fact is you'll need special tools and then you'll need to follow a special procedure as if you're defusing a bomb. Otherwise... the radio will phone home and inform the mother-ship it's being tampered with.

The prima facie reason is that in case of an accident the car should be able to request help even if everyone inside the car is unconscious. The other reason is, of course, that document you signed at the dealership stated that you've only purchased the _right_to_use_ the car... not the actual car.

Have fun with your rental :-) You should have read the fine print.

Lol, this was brought up before... at least one time:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&query=tDacjrSCeq4&sort...

Yes, it's almost as much a mathematical notation for lambda calculus as it is a programming language.

I like the bootstrapping idea... github projects may appreciate getting buyout offers out of the clear blue! And, submitted offers could be fed back into the valuation model for fine-tuning.

I agree. But if one doesn't define a "general purpose computer" as being a piece of hardware, then all kinds of different conclusions can be drawn.

If what Amelius pointed out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32116822 is true, i.e. the documentation is junk. Then, IMHO, Apple is no longer trying to sell "a good piece of hardware"; because they're not documenting its operation.

And, in reality, I find this to be true... what Apple really sells is "an experience".

Whether it's a good or bad experience is likely in the eye of the beholder.

Someone mentioned it'd be possible to run Asahi Linux, and this may have been in the back of my mind somewhere. But a lack of official docs would make life difficult and most likely explains my cognitive dissonance.

Thanks for the info.

The article states "There is no catch"... but if I'm not mistaken I'll need to run Apple's operating system, is that right?

As much as I like the salacious hardware, that would be a reasonably sized "catch" in my book :-(

Or am I wrong; is there an official way to run GNU/Linux as the main operating system?

I'm not saying that I don't like the concept... if that's what the car manufacturer thinks will get them a better profit it's up to them.

I don't see the false equivalency however. Heated seats are technically an extra physical item just like many other features of the car. Some people don't need them, nor air conditioners, nor radios.

Some people may just want a frame, engine and body.

It seems the manufacturer, in this case, has simply chosen to ignore the wishes of those consumers. After all, BMW is known to be a luxury car brand and usually won't target value conscious consumers.

Reminds me of Lee Iacocca's funny, paradoxical quote... "People want economy and they will pay any price to get it". Including fooling themselves into thinking heating elements weigh nothing. Marketing departments will run with this and spin anything they can into extra profit; good on them!

If you want, be my guest and buy the option to rent heated seats from BMW :-)

Of course this line of reasoning is extremely prone to a "sorites paradox". What happens when all kinds of other things are also disabled in the vehicle.... the radio? air conditioning compressor? motorized seat adjustment? etc?

Pretty soon the weight of those things will actually impact fuel efficiency in a meaningful way. Otherwise why not just drive a tractor trailer around?

Agreed, seems to be exactly this.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/sysrq.htm...

echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq # enable sysrq

echo o > /proc/sysrq-trigger # immediately power off

If we accept this to be true, why and how should it be used as an argument for economic interventionism?

> > The idea behind prices in a market economy is that they're an information-carrying abstraction.

> No, the idea behind prices is that they are what the participants in particular trades think it is worth trading at.

Why are these two things mutually exclusive? Aren't they, in fact, mutually dependent?

Lol, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31539114

you say "I don’t want to devalue their savings" yet above you say

"Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing".

Either your thinking has changed or, you're trying to cause confusion or, maybe confused yourself, or are trolling. At this point I suspect I may even be chatting with an ELIZA... so what else is there for me to say? Think whatever you want.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> I don’t want to devalue their savings.

Hallelujah! I do presume this means the /kind/ of savings or /where/ it's held is immaterial.

Sometimes I like to keep a portion of my savings as seashells in a shoe-box. But as you acknowledge...

> Not at all, it should absolutely be you,

And after all that circumlocution I was beginning to think you'd never concede. You've made my day!

> That’s what a market is.

To win me you need to consider the difference between a free market vs. a coerced or highly regulated one; the dynamics likely change.

> even central governments don’t set the value of money

And the difference between real and nominal rates? I'd say your statement is largely true but that doesn't mean a central bank doesn't try to manipulate real rates. That's actually their charter... price stability.

However, there is a strong argument to be made that they're not very good at it and can make things worse. The last year of exceptionally high inflation is a rather obvious real-world example.

> Nobody needs you to keep money in a mattress

Maybe true, but the question isn't what do others need... it's who gets to allocate my capital? I contend it should be me, you seem to think otherwise. Why should the government actively try to de-value people's savings? Is it a good thing to squeeze elderly retirees back into the work-force?

This is what you're implying when you say "Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing". It could be a bad thing; again esp. for pensioners and people who don't have better investment opportunities.

It's not just a question of "does the theory hold water" but also one of morality. This is why I think the phrase "in-the-mattress savings" is loaded and full of hooey. It just sounds like you're telling me I'm an idiot and can't be trusted to spend my own money wisely? It's not convincing and quite insulting to boot! Lol

I believe savings is always a good thing and it's up to the individual to determine their own preference in terms of allocation; some under a mattress and maybe some in a shoebox or some short General Dynamics puts.

The point is it's up to the individual. Why should someone else have a say when they haven't been entrusted? That is the very gist. Why should someone else have a say when they haven't been entrusted?

Freedom and liberty vs. tyranny. That's it... you're going to have a hard time convincing me that financial repression is the moral high ground.

Useful is in the eye of the behold... that's largely the point. No one can judge what or how "useful" something is besides the rightful owner of the asset. That includes cash (under a mattress), bonds, stocks, options, toilet paper, apples, bananas, etc.

If short term bills are serving a "useful economic function" and "in-the-mattress savings" does not... then there must be some asset that serves "the most useful economic function". No? Are you suggesting to know the true intrinsic value of all assets?

So, to assert that "Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing" one needs to assume that this objective way to measure value exists. Otherwise how can we [de]value things if we can't objectively valuate them?

Unfortunately, since the value theory of labor fails in so many ways where the subjective theory of value does not, it's hard to see your rational as anything but an appeal to authority.

Continuing a mindless appeal to authority just leads to tyranny. And therein lies the slippery slope.

You haven't convinced me. After all... what about short-term bills? Are they considered savings or investment? What about FX accounts? What about operating capital? In other words... what is "not invested"? An axiomatic definition is imperative... not turtles all the way down.

Savings and investment are largely synonymous so I stand by my initial statement. How can one expect to buy a house if they're precluded from putting savings "in-the-mattress"? I'm not suggesting they'd be better or worse off using leverage... I'm saying it is solely for them to determine since they're the ones who are most familiar with their own circumstances.

If someone enjoys wiping their rear with $100 bills that's up to them.

As I can tell, the best definition for "in-the-mattress savings" is capital that is deemed a bad investment by any/every one except the person who managed to create the savings itself.

Your argument leads to a slippery slope... what would stop me from taking your assets because they don't fit my definition of "investment"?