eevilspock

They need to move offshore. Iceland?

A more fair society: s/religion/moral code/gi

...with all the same caveats, e.g. freedom of religion draws lines at human sacrifice, etc.

I would have preferred they gave Objective 3 higher precedence than Objective 2. Though since I am not a Chromium user maybe I misunderstand the implications of Objective 2.

https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium#obj...

This looks very spot on with its clearly articulated goals, principles and methods. It seems very well maintained, has at least three major devs who all seem focused on open source and privacy, and has a lot of eyes on it (stars and forks).

I was hoping a project like this exists. Thank you!

My understanding is that it is not entirely open source, in particularly the code through which they deliver ads. How innocuous is that? Can I disable it? Does it do tracking? I can do the research, but if you or anyone knows the answers, please share!

All the comments hinge on whether it is fundamentally wrong or abusive for people to have to work 12-hour shifts or significantly more than the current American 40-hour per week standard.

It's not the absolute amount of work people have to do to survive that is fundamentally wrong. If everyone commenting here got ship wrecked on a desert island together and we worked 100 hour weeks and had children work too in order to survive, it is obviously not fundamentally wrong.

What's fundamentally wrong is that we effectively have a world-wide caste system. People in the upper castes live in better environments with better laws, consume a far greater share of the planet's resources per-capita, don't have to work as much, get paid more and own more of the planet per-capita, and on top of all that they leverage an economic system that is able to provide them with even more wealth (super computers in their pockets, hand-picked strawberries) and the freedom to work less and play more (hire nannies, maids and janitors, have food delivered) for incredibly cheap by coercing a race to the bottom for those in the bottom castes, who have to work harder, longer and in jobs upper caste people would consider nightmares and would need expensive therapists to recover from.

I hate Elon Musk and Twitter is a hellscape, but if you used it for one thing, it should be to follow United Farmworker's account for a daily reminder of what your upper caste life is built upon.

https://twitter.com/UFWupdates

The next button points to the next cheatsheet, not the same cheatsheet. This site is a large collection of cheatsheets.

I love Mermaid. But my biggest pain point is having to manually wrap text to keep the shapes compact. It's glaringly obvious just looking at this cheatsheet.

Incorporating an algorithm that figures out the optimal auto-wrapping for each shape to make them compact or, alternatively, one that tries to make all the shapes about the same size, should go hand-in-hand with the automatic layout Mermaid already has.

Any plans?

Let's pretend for a moment that your ratios were true (i.e. that we actually have an efficient labor market), it has nothing to do with what anyone deserves, nothing to do with their worth.

Do not conflate an economic system chosen for its ability to allocate resources efficiently (whether it does is another question) with a moral value system that assigns value to individual humans or what share of resources or power they deserve.

I don't know. Where is all this anger and righteousness when it comes to all the people servicing tech workers, from farm workers picking your food in record high temps for slave wages and no protections to food industry workers to janitors to delivery people to the nannies and school teachers caring for your children?

What about the other people who are more deeply exploited by your employers, the factory workers in poorer countries, the $2/hour workers in Kenya "tortured" by having to tag obscene material to make ChatGPT less toxic? What about all the people downstream in space and time who pay the costs of all the environmental debt incurred by your luxurious and convenient upper caste first-world lifestyles, lifestyles made "efficient" by waste, consumption and the ability to outsource life's chores to bottom workers, enabling you to put all your time into higher rate-of-return tech work?

> Which is a very long winded way of saying that you can use markdown for authoring actual content, and then use good old HTML for styling whatever else you want to.

Why does Markdown bother to have * and ** markup? Why not just use "<i>", "<b>", "<em>" or "<strong>"?

1. An admonition is no more "just styling" than is Markdown emphasis or strong markup, exclamation points at the end of a sentence or bullet lists (why not just use commas and "and"?). Admonitions are semantic.

2. HTML is not the only output rendering for Markdown.

I'm not sure something counts as an "ecosystem" if all the pieces that play in that system are produced by the same entity. Feels to me like marketing BS.

You're making this harder than it actually is by conflating a bunch of things, comparing apples and oranges. Sets defined by type vs sets defined by lists of properties, specs, rules etc.

For types, just draw the Venn diagrams:

- The set of objects of Type A is entirely within the set of objects of Subtype of A. Subtype of A is the superset.

- the set of things that are Dogs (class or real world) is entirely within the set of things that are Animals.

- the set of things that are Javascript programs is entirely within the set of things that are Typescript programs.

Yeah but what's the likelihood that an order like that by Stalin would be documented so explicitly if at all? What one would want to corroborate is the "the main reaction", which I presume to be the general public reaction, which back in those times would more likely be word of mouth, especially in such an information suppressing society?

I'm not sure if you're saying that rust stdlib docs do this but documentation where all the examples are themselves runnable as tests and included in the CI test suite solves so many problems.

Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't bother trying.

> In this situation, though, what's medicine to one is poison to the other. I can think of times in my life where each view was helpful and warranted, even if they're hard to reconcile with each other.

Moral philosopher John Rawls's uses the concepts of original position and veil of ignorance for a thought experiment that is the only fair basis for making decisions about moral principles and how society should be structured. You can think of it as "What we'd all decide for the world if each of us did not know ahead of time which circumstance we'd be born into".

https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/joh...

> The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again.

> One set of facts hidden from you behind the Veil are what we might call ‘demographic’ facts. You do not know your gender, race, wealth, or facts about your personal strengths and weaknesses, such as their intelligence or physical prowess. Rawls thought these facts are morally arbitrary: individuals do not earn or deserve these features, but simply have them by luck. As such, they do not deserve any benefits or harms that come from them. By removing knowledge of the natural inequalities that give people unfair advantages, it becomes irrational to choose principles that discriminate against any particular group.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

Yes, but as a thought experiment it is considered by many as the only way to make unbiased decisions about moral principles and how society should be structured. Moral philosopher John Rawls's uses the terms original position and veil of ignorance. You can think of them as "What we'd all decide for the world if each of us did not know ahead of time which person they'd would be born as".

https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/joh...

> The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again.

> One set of facts hidden from you behind the Veil are what we might call ‘demographic’ facts. You do not know your gender, race, wealth, or facts about your personal strengths and weaknesses, such as their intelligence or physical prowess. Rawls thought these facts are morally arbitrary: individuals do not earn or deserve these features, but simply have them by luck. As such, they do not deserve any benefits or harms that come from them. By removing knowledge of the natural inequalities that give people unfair advantages, it becomes irrational to choose principles that discriminate against any particular group.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

Makes me wonder about the impact of microplastics on microlife. It's a good thing their not intelligent otherwise they'd be pissed.

Capitalists claim to believe in free markets but private ownership of land is completely antithetical to the basic idea of a free market. In a market you cannot buy an infinite amount of something for a finite amount of money. But that's what land ownership is: control of a finite resource in perpetuity that you bought for a finite sum. You can buy some land for $10,000 then you and your heirs can collect an infinite amount of rent from it since you own it in perpetuity. Property and inheritance taxes are society's weak attempts to correct for this, but weak they are. This absurdity doesn't even include the absurdity of how the first "owner" of the land from which your ownership derives just took it, as you and the article I linked point out.

A good time to read Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?[1]

Most people who fly the economic libertarian banner are actually Royal Libertarians, which is to say they aren’t really Libertarians at all.

[1]: http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

You writing skills will stop improving the more you depend on this. It's similar to people losing the ability to mentally map where they are or learn their own city by relying on map and routing apps. While map apps have made navigation so much easier and getting lost much less frequent, it does come at some cost, perhaps acceptable. Is it acceptable to you that your English growth stalls, or if you internalize the ChatGPT changes, that you start to talk like a generic bot, albeit seemingly intelligent bot?

What this does is put people at the mercy of property owners. In other words, simply to exist one must either own land or pay someone rent (if this was implemented everywhere which is how one should evaluate its morality).

Reminds me of Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?:

> When the state granted land titles to a fraction of the population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others. Those without land privileges must either buy or rent those privileges from the people who received the grants or from their assignees. Thus the state titles enable large landowners to collect a transfer payment, or "free lunch" from the actual land users.

https://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

You just revealed your very biased agenda:

> My version of the truth is based on reading verifiable historical examples of what happens under socialism, and what happens under freedom. Not novels of either.

Here you fail not only in fact, but also in logic: Your defining socialism as the opposite of freedom begs the question. Who's the one being "heavy-handed"? You've clearly got your finger on the scales as you weigh your "truths".

We've never had real socialism; we've had totalitarianism that tries to look nice by pretending to be socialism. We've also seen what happens under capitalism: slavery, exploitation, a different kind of caste system, a rape of the environment, and an every soulless materialistic and selfist culture. Also, these days everyone says, "Look at all that capitalism as given us!" That's just another self-serving assumption, not fact. Why does capitalism get the credit, when the real causes were science and The Enlightenment, democracy and democratic rule of law (relatively speaking, as I think we are far from a true democracy), the evolution of human rights, and more... but I gotta get back to work.

You're welcome to have the last word as I think I have said plenty.

They also say history is written by the victors.

Historians don't have a monopoly on truth, nor are they "agenda free", both of which you imply in your many comments. Historians are humans who, try as they might to be "objective", are ultimately still very very subjective. You can read the past spun in entirely different ways depending upon which historian you read.

Historians can write fiction by what truths they cherry pick, or by interpretation that is presented as fact. Fiction writers can write deep truths about the human experience through a made up story. They can transport you out of your shoes into another's.

Upton Sinclair famously said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

It is also difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-image, their identity and the world view they identify with depend on their not understanding it. Is it possible that you are anti-Sinclair, that you feel he is "beat[ing you] over the head with his agenda" because you just don't like it, because it threatens your version of the truth.

Theres also writing what its target audience wants to hear, much like how political parties work. Principle always loses when money and power are involved.

I believe a high point to comment ratio ranks a post higher, that a low ratio is considered a sign of contentiousness or low quality post.

No. Within a paragraph it would introduce a hard line break, e.g. like you'd use for poetry. You'd use two line breaks, i.e. a blank line, to start a new paragraph.

In other words, the plain text analog to WYSIWYG.

He is also the author of the CommonMark spec: https://spec.commonmark.org/0.30/, https://commonmark.org

RE goal 7: here is my questioning of that goal and JGM's response, my counter, etc: https://talk.commonmark.org/t/djot-a-light-markup-language-b....