fche

"designed around getting you addicted"

This seems to want to incriminate someone's thoughts, based only on some other people's optional responses.

Can you imagine a whole legal framework for divining and arguing "design" intent? "No, your honour, it is designed for maximum entertainment and repeated play value, it says so right here in our design manuals."

"This seems like a salient point that is worthy of proper discussion and analysis."

It may be salient but is also rather pedestrian. Yes, companies vie for attention and favourable habits. See also the whole non-online world: branding, advertisement, episodic entertainment, subscription services, etc. etc. etc.

We'll know this only once government scientists speak out against the government.

FWIW, just recently read Sagan's Contact book, and found it really disappointing in terms of fiction-writing technique. The game idea sounds more like a screen-saver ... alas. In his home nonfiction niche, like Cosmos, he was great.

C+= was hounded off many other public git hosting services, and even a few days ago when one reappeared, is was hounded anew. Much hard feeling amongst the parodied.

It sounds like the same tune to me.

"we simply cannot watch the less fortunate suffer"

... as though that was what the bulk of taxes were about. (If you define "less fortunate" and "suffer" to cover everyone and everything who happens to have a smaller income than you, it is weak sauce.)

At least you're not even pretending that taxation is supposed to be good for him (by virtue of services or whatever). No, simply "you owe" the mob, however much they demand.

"to get productivity growing again, labour has to become more expensive"

Productivity is the saleable value of the work, not the cost of the work. The latter is only a floor for the former (since work that cannot be sold at least at its cost will simply not be done - witness the rise of fast food robots).

It was not "doing nothing" I was proposing, but "giving nothing", in the specific sense of donating (vs. paying for a service).

c+equality was "implemented" as a macro package. (The response-to-parody hyperventilation went well beyond github.)

It's not general X and Y in play here. It's government overriding the efficiency that normally results from competitive allocation of resources.

c+equality

... or how about "none of the above".

... and in any case, evolution stops at the neck.

Don't forget opportunity cost. Sure they may be investing, but if government weren't imposing a distortion, they could be investing better.

"If it is, then you must understand that the credit for that on-paper increase in value is to be completely given to the local government"

No. The value assessments are made by potential customers and suppliers in the area. Sure governmental actions have been one part of the causal chain, but only one of many. The fact that the building stands ready, not decrepit enough to bring down the general attractiveness of the area, is partial credit to the landlord and her choice of tenant.

"because of its zoning laws which have resulted in a dramatic undersupply of housing in the area."

Might the rent-control laws have had something to do with it too? (After all, zoning laws aren't easily effectively changed on an area that's already filled in.)

See also Postgres multi-version concurrency control. Doesn't solve the problem of merging incompatible inatomic-concurrent changes.

the salt is strong

"[can't claim ...] property owner is adding value to a property"

The property's mere continued existence is adding that value.

"Do you now understand what I mean when I say "$CURRENT_LANDLORD has done nothing to improve the value of their property."?"

Sure (in a hands-getting-dirty sense), and it is unfortunate. On the other hand, the landlord is a commercial beast. Come to think of it, if stuck with suppressed income, it's hard to see much incentive (never mind available $) to improve the property on an ongoing basis. This too can be yet another unintended consequence of rent control.

"Frankly, we can play the "No, you're using the power of the state"

I don't wish to defend zoning laws, nor humour a "tu quoque" contest. Not necessary for my point.

"My previous landlords did nothing to improve the value of their property."

That's also beside the point. They made an investment in buying and improving the land. They are not permitted to realize the market value that their investment (foresight / risk-taking) had earned.

"Am lucky to have rent control."

You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

Given that the bytecode system can at least read arbitrary kernel memory, it better be CAP_SYS_ADMIN due to information disclosure alone.

Can you outline how bcc translates that req->rq_disk->disk_name expression to bytecode? AIUI, there are no pointer-dereferencing bytecodes. Is it using the BPF_FUNC_probe_read?

(and not just "secure" as in security, but also "secure" as in fixed-interface)

That degree of risk-eliminating subsidy should indeed light a fire under entrepreneurship (while the gravy train can keep moving). Do you suppose the benefits are commesurate with the costs? IOW, are there enough new companies thusly incubated that become self-supporting or better?

Yes, it discriminates against dirt-fluid trans-cleanists.

There is no need to judge negatively or positively. It's the business' own business.

Clearly a True Programmer would believe what the original poster says. You're not a True Programmer.

For a moment, I thought we were talking about the videos.