goodrubyist

I can't believe how many took a margin call as some nefarious conspiracy. Kyle Kulinski, just as an example, said that Robinhood was given a billion dollars by hedge funds to disallow transactions of GameStop. https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1355573696119889921

It's quite unfortunate that so few lawmakers take lead on opposing mass surveillance (Ron Wyden and Ran Paul come to mind). This issue is without doubt way more important than most issues politicians choose to demagogue about ("cancel college debt", e.g. Sigh).

I stumbled upon this while going through the orders yesterday. Note that, Justice Thomas is talking in terms of how the law has been interpreted wrongly by providing concrete examples (his statement is definitely worth a read). The issue basically arises from previous judges trying to enact and enforce what they believe Congress' subjective intentions to be, not the text of the law they passed.

Unlike what many might fear, this is not a case of a Justice trying to enforce what he wishes the law were.

Okay, so let's say some people can't afford to buy digital goods. How does that, by itself, explain a general belief that the few who do that are stupid because they "don't realize" that they are available for "free"?

Now, you or I might say that they aren't really available for free (they're stolen/pirated), but any thoughts of that kind just don't appear in many people (amoral, not immoral).

I can attest to this. In fact, in India, it's considered very stupid and laughable by a very large number of people to buy digital books and music, because they are available for "free" on pirate websites. Read that again: I'm not just saying that people pirate stuff, instead, I'm saying they consider it unimaginable and stupid to spend money because it's available for "free." Ethics never enter the picture, I promise you.

Also, it's considered acceptable and clever to order clothes, use them at an event, and return as "defective." Quaint concepts like morality are not even considered relevant.

Yeah, I found to read that part dispiriting too. The fact that practicing on leetcode has such a substantial effect on one's chances, to me, shows that it's very likely that either employers don't know how to select candidates, or maybe, they're just trying to track the best proxy they know for job performance.

I, personally, think that the ability to write "clean code", to think and care deeply about decisions related to code when it spans multiple fiels, is way more valuable in many jobs (not all!). Yet, unsurprisingly, I see that very few give any serious thought to it, given what companies care about is leetcode.

You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.

Woah, took me some time to digest this -- "contextualize liberties" must be the most Orwellian phrase in existence, only thing that might come close is another phrase you used, "civil rights absolutism."

I hope that's the case!

I hope the guy who wrote this post didn't choose to disinvite those two just because they had unfashionable views on social justice. Morality /=/ fashion.

Whether Facebook should be paying people to work or not, the decision should be made by Facebook and those people voluntarily, not imposed on them by the government. If some people think they should be paid for the work, they should refuse to do it for free...the fact that in such a case other people might do the same work for free instead doesn't still entitle the government to dictate the terms of a voluntary relationship.

You shouldn't be using debugging in dev tools to help write your code. Do TDD instead. This should help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93QezwTQpI&t=2581s

That's wrong. What matters is the capacity to suffer. There are humans who do not have the mental capacity to articulate such a thing either. I'd highly recommend as it deals with such arguments in greater length. http://lockeanliberal.com/2014/11/02/what-a-conservative-col...

Hmm

I don't know how you can seriously argue that $1/year is "not as inexpensive as you think." Even in poor countries, that subscription fee is ridiculously low.

Regulation (except for environmental ones) tend to violate the non-aggression principle and are thus not preferable (it's basically the government using it's monopoly on legitimate use of force to determine on what terms people interact in the market). A non-coercive solution would be to incentivize/negotiate better terms of service, as suitable.