landryraccoon

Couldn’t that have been done equally well with a centralized ledger? Lots of games have “high stakes pvp”, such as eve online. They don’t have a blockchain, and yet you can still steal stuff permanently from other players if that’s how you want to play the game.

Is the argument then that scans are intrinsically error prone, as in the noise level is so high that even a team of highly trained radiologists can’t accurately determine if cancer is present from a scan?

Wouldn’t the skill of analyzing scans improve if they were done more frequently?

It seems like you’re promoting a self fulfilling prophecy. Doctors aren’t good at reading scans, so scans will cause false positives.

But doctors are capable of learning and improving their skills. They will surely rapidly learn to screen a lot of false positives, thereby saving lives.

The prisoners at Guantanamo haven’t even been charged. How can they be guilty if you can’t even say what they’re allegedly guilty of?

What's the problem you're trying to solve?

It's perfectly fine as an outsider to try to break into an unfamiliar industry, even a mature one. But what is it exactly you want to accomplish?

Electrical power generation is a mature industry. So what's the problem with the industry you think you can fix? What's your idea for something that isn't already being done?

Well, nobody had ever flown a plane before the Wright brothers.

Civilization has had grid scale electrical power for over a hundred years. It’s sheer hubris to ignore the fact that this is a mature industry with experts that have studied the problem for decades.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My first guess is that climate change deniers are the biggest culprits of trying to make science fit a contradictory world view, and my second guess would be anti-vaccine advocates.

I’m curious, I genuinely dont know what sides you’re talking about. Who do you think is stoking the culture war?

If the ship arrives early, can't it just sit a few miles from port and wait in the ocean? The ship must have been provisioned to remain at sea for that time anyway if it was expecting to arrive later.

> I think we are pretty much maxed out on automation

That would be a very surprising result to me. I don't think we're maxed out on automation until the ships are loaded at the port, travel to their destination, then unloaded at the destination with no human labor.

Unless you're telling me that robots load, unload, pilot and maintain the ships at sea, we aren't anywhere near maximum automation.

They could also redesign container ships to carry fewer containers. If automation can reduce the crew requirements and wind power can reduce the fuel consumption, a larger number of more efficient ships might be more viable than a small number of super transports.

That’s horrible.

If what you claim is true true, public funding of universities should end. Universities should serve the public interest, and teaching is an essential part of that.

The public spends untold billions funding universities and we should at least get a well educated workforce out of it.

The thousand year old college system’s time is over if what you say is true. There’s no point to it.

Yeah, I agree. It's a problem with the world. But it's not generally a problem you can solve.

The problem that you solve is information. You don't know who's trustworthy and who isn't. If I can give a small amount of help to someone in exchange for knowing if they are trustworthy or not, that's probably worth it.

The people that reciprocate you can keep in your life and they become valuable friends. I am more than happy with the tradeoff of sometimes giving people some help that they don't reciprocate in exchange for finding the ones that will.

I don’t see what the problem is. If you have helped someone a lot, and then call in a favor and the ghost you, you didn’t lose a friend. You lost a parasite.

It’s like when you lend money to someone and they avoid you to never pay you back. Depending on the amount that can be money well spent.

I’m really surprised this is even possible. Isn’t renewing keys every year as simple as setting a cron job (or whatever the google equivalent is)? How does it even happen that a large organization can forget to renew keys multiple years in a row?

Back around 2009 when Facebook was first becoming ascendant, people wondered if social networks were generational. I.e., would each younger generation be willing to use the same social network as their parents?

I think the de facto surrender of Facebook to TikTok here is evidence that social networks ARE generational. That implies that TikTok may reign supreme for about 20 years, but thereabouts, they'll have to contend with yet another rising challenger.

I think the main issue as a consumer is, do I trust Tesla to try to provide me with the best experience? Or are they going to squeeze me and hit me with "aha, gotcha! you should have read the fine print!" every time there's an issue?

As a consumer, it's extremely expensive to remain well informed. I want to purchase from brands where I feel that the company wants me to be happy, ESPECIALLY with such a premium brand as Tesla. I certainly don't want to need a lawyer on hand to figure out if I'm going to buy a lemon or not.

If Tesla makes an error, it should be resolved in the Customer's favor, period. Why would anyone buy a Premium (read: highly expensive) product if they know the company is going to try to hit them with monkeys-paw customer service terms?

Can you say more about the influence of renters?

It seems to me to be the opposite. The mortgage interest tax deduction is a massive regressive government subsidy for homeowners, and penalizes younger people who rent or cannot afford to buy a home.

So I’m curious what suggests to you that renters have political power. To me it seems the opposite - tax policy massively prefers owners over renters.

That doesn't sound like fun to me. That sounds more like a nightmarish psychosis.

> Eh, war is simply fun.

Well an idealized version of war that’s designed to glorify it could be fun.

Is actual war fun? Is the Ukraine war fun? I doubt it’s fun for any of the participants. It’s not fun for Ukrainian soldiers, it’s not fun for Russian soldiers, and it’s not fun for Russian or Ukrainian civilians.

Maybe it’s fun for some onlookers that like to cheer and spectate, but I would argue that speaks more to the nature of the spectators than to the nature of war.

What laws were broken here?

In the case of a missing user ID, if a more verbose response is desirable, why not put the error message in the body of the response?

404: Route not found vs 404: User ID not found seems like it resolves all ambiguity, no?

I don't believe what you think I do.

Authoritarian states have been the default for most of human civilization. Freedom is a good, but it doesn't "auto-win". It can lose, and in fact it has lost, over and over and over again, throughout human history.

Native American tribes were arguably more free than Europeans at the time the new world was discovered. Unfortunately, they didn't have guns and horses, and the Europeans did. I would prefer not to end up on the side without the guns and the horses the next time a paradigm changing military technology is discovered.

If we want to keep the society we prefer, we have to fight for it. That's not because we like fighting, that's simply the only way it's been made to ever work at any point in history.

Do you think it’s a risk that more authoritarian and belligerent states develop them first?

War has been a constant force in human history up to and including the present day. I would greatly prefer that if such weapons exist that my society has access to them if others are sure to follow.

For that reason I think it’s ethical to work on weapons technology. You could be a principled pacifist, but I think that’s self defeating. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, that did not bring them peace. Arguably if they had nukes, they would not be at war.

Would you restore to a decades old previous commit on a system that had been running just fine in production that entire time?

SCOTUS isn't even really the engineering team imho, they're devops. If they're there just to enforce the rules, the rules are set just as much by precedent as by the letter of the law, since precedent is what is already working. They should just keep the system running and have a strong bias for favoring the status quo.

This court isn't "conservative" in the traditional sense; I would call them hyper-reactionary.

I applied it by way of analogy.

If you want a political analogy, politically, there is no "right or wrong". SCOTUS is not motivated by adherence to precedent, they clearly have an ideological agenda.

They are not, for example, legalizing marijuana, on the grounds that the FDA should not have the authority to schedule drugs. They chose to go after environmental regulations because they ideologically prefer capitalist interests over environmental ones. It is brazenly political, as was their overturning of Roe vs Wade.

I find this argument very unconvincing.

To use an engineering analogy, if the government were a software application, this is very much like a senior engineer going on a major refactor of a production system, causing huge breaking changes for the sake of "principles", without consulting product, CS or QA. For the sake of argument, lets grant that there's some force to those principles. Is that justification for suddenly breaking a system that was working and causing a massive amount of confusion for downstream users that were blindsided and now have to do massive updates of their own?

Okay, now lets suppose that the same senior engineer was secretly (or perhaps even openly) beating the drum for some feature changes behind the scenes, and nobody liked the features he was proposing. Now after the refactor, it turns out that for "technical reasons" the features now work the way HE wanted them to. When asked, he claims it wasn't a political decision, it was driven purely by engineering concerns, "cleaning up tech debt" and so forth, he claims. Might it seem to you that the refactor was just a smokescreen for just getting the feature changes he wanted into production?

If this engineer was at your company, would you keep them on, or fire them as soon as possible?

Now according to your argument, you view SCOTUS as the engineering team, and Congress as the product team. You're saying that ten years after you release a feature, the technical lead can say "Hey, you remember that spec for those features we released to production 10 years ago? I think we did it wrong, we need to refactor it so it works right. Also that was the old engineering lead, and I never liked them anyway. It'll be a major breaking change, but that shouldn't be an obstacle to doing it right this time. Should we ask Product or the Executive team first? Of course not, we know what we're doing."

I'd prefer if I could use a single OS for most of my needs instead of having to context switch between platforms.

In particular, I hate that I need to have a Windows machine for gaming in addition to a Unix machine for everything else. If Linux were a substantial competitor on the desktop, more developers would feel compelled to port their games to Linux, and I wouldn't have to make that choice.

I think we're assuming that if an application ever wants to be "mainstream", it has to be useable by people who don't know what a command line is, let alone what "sudo" means.

I didn’t know having multiple remote jobs simultaneously wasn’t kosher. Why resort to Hollywood? I do it all the time. It’s called being a contractor.