greycol

I've bought into that idea (with caveats case by case, i.e. evaluated by judges with discretion), but it only works when those kind of crimes are feeders into social support agencies. Without effective social support to either rehabilitate behaviour or remove the need for that behaviour you're either going to need to remove the offenders or accept repeated crimes.

The cheapest cost per prisoner in the US is $23,000 per year (Arkansas with other states costing more). That's a lot of support you can give a person before it makes sense to send them to prison, especially if the prison doesn't actively work towards rehabilitation.

Problem is MVP prisons for your criminal population is viewed as needed while spending the money more effectively doesn't really have political consensus.

It's unfortunately not news that a Trump presidency doesn't respect the mores of the office.

The president can pardon people for breaking federal law and can stop the enforcement of federal law[1] so as president elect it makes sense that he can effectively neuter any federal law short of congress deciding he has gone to far and impeaching and removing him.

[1]i.e. federal agencies no longer prosecute personal marijuana use by executive order

You certainly don't use it to mean "those crazy people who are pro interacial marriage" but some do. The woke people supporting trans rights almost certainly don't support macho man randy savage chucking on a dress and that same day competing in the olympics but the characture that supports it is part of the woke mob.

People scoff and think of course I know what woke means, because the people the people they talk to/media they consume have the word at roughly the same level of meaning, not internalising the next more or less extreme group that isn't in their social circle include more or less in the meaning.

These days the word woke might as well serve the same purpose as "If by scotsman..." in that no one will disagree with you unless you get into specifics.

It's a hard problem because when you start asking questions about what an unqualified home user needs it's easy to say just one more thing.

port forwarding? ofcourse how else can the kid have a minecraft server with friends

dynamic dns? then the friends don't need to search "what's my ip" every time

parental controls? to schedule how much time they can play minecraft...

I like Mikrotik but for anyone trying to go beyond the barebones default firewall/router/ap on the quickset page you need to be prepared to learn. i.e. To make a DHCP reservation, you go through the menus until you click IP, then you realise you don't click on DHCP client to set up a DHCP client you go into DHCP server and try to give a device a reservation which requires the step of making it static first then seperately setting it's IP.

The complaint basically boils down to: they have all the options there and available and the least common task is just as easy to do as the 2nd most common (after initial basic setup), and if a task touches multiple parts of the config you need to touch each of those parts. Great for someone who knows what they're doing but for a home user it would be great to have more quickset pages for the 2nd to 10th most common tasks (as intagible as that list is).

Both are common sayings and easily googleable:

Hanlon's Razor: Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity

Chesterton's Fence (worth googling as it's a nice little parable, or it might be a derivation of the parable,can't quite remember): Can boil it down to: if you don't know what something does assume it serves a purpose until you've figured out what purpose it used to serve. In this case I'm implying these people are playing the part of wanting to change the fence without knowing it's purpose.

Assuming Hanlon's razor it's a Chesterton's fence situation you just see a LED that indicates the camera is on. Assuming they ask the question at all they think it's just to remind you your still streaming/in a meeting. Then someone asks any of the following questions:

Can we use it to indicate additional information?

Can we make it standard with the other LEDs?

Can we dim it so it's more pleasant to use at night or make it a customisable colour?

I'm sure plenty of other questions take you down the same path and you've just destroyed one of the LEDs most useful functions.

The person he's replying to has a simplistic view, his view is "injecting parasites into people without their permision bad" a very fine view to have. However we're discussing a situation where these parasites are infact symbiotes, were alternatives are more deaths.

We're also not doing it from a position of "mosquitos couldn't be used to spread human selectable things to kill humans before and now people suddenly can spread genetically modified killer parasites".

The one thing this research does is add the ability to spread immunity to malaria through mosquito population it doesn't change anything else about what could be spread by mosquitos before. People have been using animals to spread disease as a weapon of war since medieval times this is not a new vector that will suddenly be exploited.

This can only be a good thing unless you view the vaccines as a danger worse than the disease (which with such a widespread and deadly disease would be rather unlikely in any objective sense) or to be simplistic you believe in the inalienable right to be a vector to spread diseases to those around you.

To be honest yes, lots of super hero stories about them. Though to be fair they're called symbiotes when they're helpful.

For most of it you can just go to the customer facing part of ad services and see these as distinct chooseable options, for mental state you could hand wave it away as "do we really know the mental state of someone who closely followed political news and has been searching for air tickets and migration processes since Nov 6?"

No they use the word backdoor because there is no better word for these pathwatys/purposefully created weak spots in access to the software. Seriously please give me one that emphasises the security detriment to the 1st party user and i'll happily use it instead.

I'll also add that ironically those who don't oppose these bills are unwittingly doing the bidding of strategic adversaries as demonstrated quite adequately by the PRC here.

We've had multiple bills proposed by multiple countries for government mandated backdoors. Multiple articles refer to how these bills would create backdoors, multiple computer security experts say the bills would create backdoors in the software. Under your definition of the word they'd all be using the word incorrectly because logically no bill could create a legal backdoor by definition.

It's seems there's a semantic schism on "the point in software where security is weak enough (either purposefully or unkowingly) for 3rd party access by a 3rd party" and "the point in software where security is purposefully weakened for 3rd party access by the legal requirement of a 3rd party" there's definitely a distinction but I generally conflate the two, perhaps incorrectly, under the word backdoor.

If you've got another more appropos word for this purposeful and legal weakining of security for non primary user/provider access I'd love to know it because sadly I feel I'd use it fairly often in the coming years.

You've probably conflated the saying "going through the backdoor" with the noun backdoor, which is an understandable mistake to make.

Conflating the two is even easier when the backdoor is morally questionable i.e. When someone purposefully installs a wooden backdoor on a bankvault and says it's so that we don't need to go through the whole rigmarole of opening the main vault-door. Yes it allows them to do their job of checking what's in safety deposit boxes easier but the door itself is an evil.

Arizona and Nevada both voted for abortions rights even though they voted republican. The left and right aren't a boolean option, a left candidate who says the system isn't working may do just as well as a right candidate who says the same because they get more of "the grocery prices are broken" crowd even if their overall policies are less palatable.

I don't think anything I said is in conflict with what you've said, I'm pointing out one of the reasons the poster might still be getting spam from a mail he's reported as spam. The can spam act was more about senders requirements than email platform providers requirements for recieving (i.e. spam filtering). Yes the republicans were more affected by the spam filters but both researchers and internal communication indicated it wasn't because of any deliberate bias (just that republican emails were more likely to be like spam as far as an algorithmic interpratation goes (pure uncharitable conjecture: perhaps because one party was more likely to include a unsubscribe button even if it wasn't required by the can spam act and thus weren't reported as spam as much). Because of this they sued and google reportedly made more tools available or atleast publicised existing tools to both republicans and democrats to exclude their email campaigns from getting caught in the spam filters (tools that have also been made available to some of the larger more legitimate bulk email providers).

It's clearly a compromise, but if we were going for a perfect implementation then everyone would have a local/self hosted soloution. This just means in the case of a bad vendor/unwanted default/change to a better vendor you can migrate away from them quickly (and not need to visit them again) without having to update all your pass keys at once.

I'd expect good vendors to be popping up "You haven't updated your passkey for this site since you migrated to us, you should go to your account settings and do so" on login to a site.

I'm pretty sure that most marketeers correlate with the "it's fine to send lots of useless crap to people for $x justifcation" philosphy. You pick a Marketeer(D) or Marketeer(R) and they'll be happy to use whatever legal tools they can use in that vein (Sure there's good ones but they're rarer). I'd classify it as a failing in their world view rather than a moral one, not to say there aren't immoral marketeers.

Unfortunately political parties have more of a free pass on this as Republicans sued providers for their emails getting caught up in spam filters around 2022 (Who would've thought continuosly emailing people who click unsubscribe on your emails who then start reporting as spam would get you put on spam lists). Now political parties (and some bulk providers) have special tools to bypass rejection with some providers as a compromise.

I feel you're missing the forest for the trees... You're advocating a policy of the ultra rich not having to pay tax during their lifetime because it's less complicated.

I understand you're viewing it as a tax increase as the estate pays less tax on death under the current system, but sometimes you need to realise you're stuck in the overton window.

Your point stands but there's an argument to be made they paid Mozilla so that they don't collapse and then have to defend a monopoly lawsuit on Chrome.

>>I still struggle to see the harm

>>Google search is still the best out there

The second statement coupled with the fact that google search has declined in quality due to choices by google (not just the admitidely difficult SEO adversaries) is the harm. Google is able to purposefully degrade it's experience because of the lack of competition, and demonstratably has (while still, arguably, being viewed as the best).

I'm with you on the remedies, I can't think of any specific to paying to be the default that don't have multiple negative knock on effects (I'm particuarly worried about what this means for Mozzila funding myself). Still you don't skip chemotherapy just because it's more acute in the short term.

He hasn't promised not to scrape their site using even more of their resources...

Used to be that, coupled with competition with competing services, was the main reason sites offered APIs.

They shouldn't have complete control over governence because, especially in larger businesses, the shareholders are less invested in what a business does than the stakeholders.

A classic example would be an employee forced to work in an unhealthy manner. If the cost of replacing the employee when they're worn out is less than the extra profit made by causing the employee to work in that manner it might be the right form of governance for shareholders. Even if it would not be profitable if the health costs weren't externalised.

This feels a lot like "Of course they use their hands, they couldn't give you a massage otherwise" but it's in reply to a news article about the person who agreed to being touched being punched.

Imagine I'm using pi = 3 (accuracy of 1 significant figure) that's an error of about 4.5% of π(pi), 3.1 is only 1.3% 3.14 only 0.05% with the error decreasing with each additional significant figure.

Imagine there's a circle with radius 1m and you've got a calculated bearing to it calculated using pi = 3 . In the worst case in 2 dimensions for every meter you walked you could be walking off to the side ~0.0225 meters (napkin maths) from where the circle really is, so it would only take the circle being ~45m away for you to walk right by it rather than through it. With pi =3.1 you're diverging ~0.0066m per meter so the circle would need to be ~152m away before there was a chance you'd miss it. 11 digits of pi gets you about 3 light years of walking before you had a chance of missing.

They were discussing (with a large degree of understatement,as discussed by others above) that this value of pi gives great precision in these kinds of calculations.

A classic economic view on an object being bought/sold is that the item has more worth to the buyer at that price than it does to the seller. That means that if you reverse the transaction the buyer isn't getting what he believed the item was worth back.

That's without going into any hassle associated with replacing it's use.

I'm not saying that people would be justified in being really upset but I'd certainly understand why they would be (especially for a niche product because that means it's harder or more expensive to replace)

It's not a dumb take. It very much happens.

However this happens in FPTP as well, they're just called wedge issues.

Obviously a view on abortion shouldn't dictate a parties view on tax. In FPTP it does dictate that implicitly where as in MMP it would be explicitly negotiated as part of a support agreement between two or more parties (to varying degrees, i.e. explicit suppport, or perhaps supporting a bill to the point it will be voted on while allowing a conscience vote by their members).

Of course the fines are punitive, that's because the fines aren't supposed to be a revenues source for the EU they're supposed to deter behaviour (To the point the first round of them are often dimunitive or waived entirely before ramping up steeply if the behaviour doesn't change).

Another reason the fines are based on global revenue are to get around all the income shenanigans tech companies play, or do you really believe google's most profitable country is Ireland?

>Apple has less than 30% market share globally.

The EU is less than 30% of the population globally, and only 10% of iphone sales. By your logic clearly what it does doesn't have an outsized effect on apple that needs to be corrected.

And just for compl&eness the symbol "&" is called an ampersand.

Rather than going in to details why that doesn't matter, with relation to monopolistic power, I'll just let you extrapolate your reasoning to the following:

The EU population is quite literally a minority of the world population.

I'm guessing 180 is 180cm, as 183cm is 6ft which fit's in to the whole "don't swipe if under 6ft" meme. Which, in case you're unfamiliar with it, is a popularised (no idea if it's actualy popular) line on dating app profiles where you swipe to indicate interest in talking. Which somewhat demystifies the rest.