meanduck

> Nobody says voting will get you the government you want.

That is the point. Vote is increasingly becoming deselect method (Govt that is least bad) than select.

Yes who needs better and more correct code for critical missions, If we all shout loud/longer enough we would win.

But what you gain from being politically active is the right to not be abused, at the loss of productivity. Its lose-lose situation.

Aww Govt is sad they are losing right to enslave citizens. Bureaucrats/Welfare-Addicts are worried about nearing possibility of doing actual work for money.

Your argument of "at least we are not as bad as Uber" is just sick.

Its obvious you and many others here are statists. And its fine if thats how you want to live but I dont. So instead of endless debate on this/UBI/RTBF/etc, we need to work on a (better) framework to decouple land from politics i.e. Secession Protocol.

> in that if you actually stop consuming government services, i. e. leave the country

Stop spreading the nonsense that Govt is owner of the land. Its not. At best Govt/Army is protector of the land for which almost everyone happy to pay.

So no I dont have to go anywhere Its my land. The onus to figuaring out feasible payment method falls on the "mafia" or close the shop, IDGAF.

Yes Govt is solely responsible for every human achievements since 1900.

I guess GP is refering to repetitiveness of same arguments.

A tree thread is good for discovery but not so good for reaching a conclusion/consensus. Flat/linear thread should be used instead.

I think Research = Observe-Theorize-Experiment works. Reverse engineering is not research because someone already has the answer.

No No No. There are probably ~100K of ISPs, many of them in judicially-weak countries. This will never work. ISPs are not the problem. Its fundamental oversight in routing architecture of internet.

BCP38 is Best Current Practice. Not a protocol requirement. Once it becomes a requirement this will be solved in a week.

The 5 RIRs[1] are the non-profit organizations that allocates IPs and regulates ASNs. I dont know how but we (or the big internet boys) should petition them to force ASNs to fix their routers.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry

It cant. One solution would be blackholing AS 456 from AS 789 at the requrest of its members. Hopefully this will teach 456 to stop misbehaving.

Though we do assume that AS wont itself misbehave and send a spoofed packet to one of its member peer and most of time its true.

We have to worry about misbehaving ISPs for which previously mentioned filtering works.

> Netadmins can make those kinds of statements about traffic originating from with their own networks because they set the rules. But at an interconnection the types of networks connecting, and the purpose of the connection might mean there is little meaningful anti-spoofing protection that can be done.

I dont think so. IXP can force peers to provide their IP Space even if its whole internet. At least they wont be able to spoof IP outside of their space. If they do spoof ddos from their own space the above solution would probably suffice.

EDIT: I just realized peer already has to give destination ip ranges. So IXP dont have to force anyone.

Should not a router be able to this filtering ? Making Internet Exchange Points do it would be even more quicker. Once big IXPs do it smaller would follow suite for the fear being cut-off and eventually ISPs.

No country subsidize for other countries. Certainly not for moral reasons.

Subsidizes get introduced either to score political points and/or bribes. Thats it.

Everyone is egocentric. For countries, egocentric-ness is maximum.

UBI/FB like threads are filled with comments that seemed to forgot this so obvious fact of life. Its the worst thing about HN.

Lets say we have total population P, fraction of rich q. Total wealth W, fraction of wealth possessed by rich x. Lets say we take txW and give to poor.

Share/poor : txW/P(1-q)

Fractional increase in wealth of a poor (FI) : ( txW/P(1-q) ) / ( W(1-x)/P(1-q) ) = tx/(1-x).

We assumed all poor have same wealth.

Some quick values for (t = .1 = 10%) (x, FI) (10%, 1.11%) (15%, 1.275%) (25%, 3.33%) (50%, 10%) (75%, 30%) (90%, 90%)

Lets say 1%er have 25% of all wealth then poor will see 7.5x3.33 ~ 25% increase in wealth if 75% of rich wealth is taken.

Conclusion: everyone loses in a revolution.

> The economist looks for competitors in cases like this. A firm cannot just willy-nilly raise their prices without a competing firm leaping in to give consumers what they want at a lower price. As it turns out, Mylan has a great friend who keeps would-be competitors out of the market, or at least makes it so difficult for them that they eventually go out of business. That friend is the FDA.

> ...

> Mylan has been repeatedly protected from competition, and it has repeatedly (and predictably) increased the price of EpiPens in response. Allowing all of these companies to compete in producing epinephrine auto-injectors would be the best course for all of the many patients who want a cheaper solution for severe allergic reactions.

> One thing is for sure: capitalism is not to blame. Government regulations have choked this market and many others. What we need is a big dose of freedom.

src : https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault

> Well, social mobility is the change in social status relative to others, which can correlate with income, yes. It also correlates with things like education and skills, type of occupation, etc.

Why do you classify it as social mobility ? Would not economic mobility be a better term considering education and skills are economic goods not social.

> Well, education is expensive -- and has an opportunity cost -- so low-income people often cannot afford to improve their skills and earn more income.

I thought it was not economic inequality but something else. But yes this make sense and its expected/desired of a good economy. This is not preventing.

> If I am poor, and I have enough intelligence to become a good scientist, engineer, or artist, but cannot afford to go to university and gather the requisite skills, then this is a loss to society.

Thats why the concept of loan/investments exist. All you have to is convince them that its net positive for them too.

Also this not loss. This is absence of profit.

What is socioeconomic mobility (of a person) in this discussion ? Is it rate of change in salary ?

> If people who could have been top-notch scientists, engineers, civil servants and entrepreneurs were prevented from doing so because they couldn't move up the ladder (and inversely, rich rent-seekers couldn't move down), society is deprived of their contributions and is worse off.

Why are they being perevented ? If I am the CEO, would not it be against my own interest to prevent my employees from making a contribution ? What ladder is that you speak of ? It certainly cannot be salary. Is there a caste system in company ? If people are being prevented based on their position in social ladder (such as caste system) does it even matter if they have more income ?

Except hn cannot imprison or tax you. The problem is not tracking but give more power to something overly-powerful. Same thing applies to corporations.

> If what you say about "requests" and "responses" is both true and dispositive of the issue of authorization, then you're saying that virtually every SQL injection vulnerability on the Internet is also an "authorized" form of access to people's backend databases.

No GP is saying IP/TCP/HTTP does not define legality of a packet and you (not you) should not put such fragile server on Internet on first place.

Of course you can make laws to make some requests illegal. But even then you will have non-local nodes to worry about. Not to mention the change in softwares/hardwares as a result. Oh, the number brain cycles wasted.

Please fix your server its hard but not impossible.

Its internet. Anyone can request anything. All requesters knows this. Almsot all servers knows this and thus check each request for access.

So yes there is one node that is going out of the widely accepted "social" norm but its Facebook.

Instead of changing one node, your solution is to change all other billions node.

Cryptocurrency does not mean it has perfect dicentralised distribution. It only means that its (much) better than fiat currency's.

And how are they single institution ? And if you dont like the distribution you can be a miner as it is required by cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is still being adopted. We should see more fair distribution or see another better cryptocurrency. Anycase cryptocurrency is the future global currency.

Mining pool or single gpu its irrelevent. As long as honest people can get more computational power than dishonest ones, cryptocurrency is decentralised and 51%-honest.

To make it more decenteralised. Cryptocurrency without enough participents actively voting with their computational power is not a cryptocurrency and will have none of the improvements over fiat currency.

Bitcoin might have 51% dishonest problem but it can be made honest again by increasing total computation. Whether 51% are honest or not is function of total computation power [TCP]. Probablity of 51% being honest goes to 1 as TCP goes to infinity.

EDIT: OK lets say some 51% is dishonest. You have the option to become miner and reduce their power/influence share.

51% being honest is fundamental assumption of a cryptocurrency [1]. The assumption gets stronger as total computation power increases.

[1] Its necessery but not sufficient condition to make the whole state dishonest. You would need to have >50% computation work done.

There is no scenario where (eg) bitcoin's 51% computing power goes to single institution. If one govt jumps in so will the others. In fact you can jump too and vote with your computing power. And note this is not possible in fiat currencies.

There is no reason to be disappointed. The guarantees are same as before. That is, Its 51% computing power that sets the next reality not a central/political/technical institution.

> I'm not asking for Facebook or Gmail to mandatorily keep my stuff. I'm asking that I be given an opportunity to keep my stuff if they're no longer willing to keep it on my behalf, whether they're doing that because they want to cut costs, or because, per them, I've violated their terms of usage. When I first opened my Yahoo Email account, my storage was limited to 6MB. Megabytes. When it got full, I had a choice to delete some, download others, and so on. I didn't demand for more storage, because my deal with them said 6MB. (If I'm not mistaken, I could pay for more if I wished to).

There is "Gmail for Work" which does provide some of the guarantees you are looking for. Though none regarding illegal content, as per the laws.

Dont read too much into it. This is EU seeing its economy and consumers exposed and looking for better deal.