mikec3010

I'm offended. Remove this at once dang. This is gender stereotyping and misogyny. We don't need this kind of harangueing in here.

I asked "why doesn't apple allow or support it", not "why can't it be done?"

Why was the harangueing ok when Adrienne was doing it? Was it because it was done with the proper political bent?

If you dont show someone an ad, that's not discrimination. It's just not advertising to a group of people.

Please don't talk about gender discrimination in other industries? Is that wrongthink?

Dang, please don't allow people to post about these topics if you don't like facts that are inconsistent with your or others' pre-approved narratives.

I wonder why apple doesn't allow or support Linux? I would happily buy a Mac pro (trashcan) or a mbp if it had solid Linux support. I think their hardware is awesome. But I have no interest in learning MacOS. The dealbreaker for me is no ctrl key in the corner

I wonder if you could compromise and use powdered concrete in a closed system? High powered fans could blow the fine powder upward in a silo so it would act like a liquid. Then large paddlewheels catching the powder could power a generator coming back down. I have no idea if powder going up a tube has less friction than blocks on a cable/pulley, however.

> Saying you don't know what you're talking about is not a personal attack

It's attacking the person, not the central point. Thus making it ad-hominem.

> You might be surprised to learn that there are in fact three branches of government in the United States

See above comment.

> Assuming 1 teacher making 100k

Assume a PhD student making a $35k stipend or a foreign grad student making $14/hr.

This covers a good 25%-40% of the curriculum, depending on the institution.

I think the reverse of what he said was true: that tuition has risen artificially because of all the free money. But yeah I'm also skeptical that tuition would decrease even close to the same way if the money were removed. I think they'd cut supply before they cut price. Especially with the all too common "but you need a degree" fallacy

The same "they" you are referring to. The ones writing the checks. I don't care about the precise technicality that enables wage suppression. I literally don't care. The constitution also says no spying on Americans, but somehow that precise word of law was elided. The bottom line is: they have billions, they suppress wages for employees, and they enrich billion dollar contracting firms. Nothing I claim is untrue.

> you don't know what you're talking about.

Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

The government has the money. As evidenced by their defense budget.

The government does not pay the money to their employees. As evidenced by NSA employees making less than high-grade truck drivers.

The government does pay billions to corporations such as Lockheed or Booz, etc.

SO let's recap: they have the money, they just choose not to pay it to their employees. But instead it inexplicably gets rerouted to rent-seeking gatekeepers.

> but then the government pays...

That's my point. They have the money, but something-something..."policy"...something-something.... It goes to corporations instead of people.

Shows a contradiction/hypocrisy. They have the money, but just choose to spend it on corporations and not humans.

I'm surprised they didn't do something truly clandestine like embed encrypted texts into photos of merchandise and list them on amazon/alibaba

What about the Rosenbergs?

Yeah it's barbaric what the Chinese do to spies. Next thing you know they'll be waterboarding prisoners or holding people without trial for a decade. Good thing we're superior westerners, huh?

But they have no qualms about paying "market rate" to defense contractors to build all their toys.

> even though a 280 attack will break somebody's AES-128 key out of a batch of 248 keys.

Yeah, "somebody's", but what does the average somebody have that's worth cracking their encryption over? It seems to me that most cryptanalysis threat models would be very specifically targeted: what is the President saying on his secure line? Where are the submarines being dispatched? What are the corporate earnings or fed rate decisions going to be?

Trawling thousands of encrypted connections and cracking one or two is a pretty cool feat,but probably not valuable enough to recoup the costs or yield anything of extraordinary value.

I learned this the hard way when I realized CUPS (printing services) is a dependency on almost any major desktop app. I thought "I don't own a printer, probably will never need one, let's remove this superfluous printer software" only to find it's so ingrained in applications it may as well be a part of the OS. In all fairness, it is convenient to be able to print to pdf sometimes

It's wasteful, but probably no more than injection molding factories that make cheap plastic junk.

That must means more fuel is building up and burning all at once. Fires are an integral part of the forest ecosystem.

I blame firefighting causing forest change. Firefighting causing fuel levels to build up to unprecedented densities. Who put out fires before we started? Nobody. Nature handles that fine herself. But leave it to us to try to "improve" on it.

You admit space is uninhabited. Your unnecessary and petulant copy/paste of the definition of pollution includes the words "poisonous" and "harmful". Which isn't possible to do to an uninhabited area. I have no idea why you keep forcing such a contrived idea, other than to draw in a political "bad humans, always polluting" message. Anyway I'm done with this silly conversation. Have fun

Pollution is intimately tied to politics because most inhabited property is owned, which means it's regulated by some governmental systems having varying degrees of regulation and penalties for pollution. I have no idea why that has to be explained to you.

You would do this at home because that is where residential PV is located. Of course it's more obvious to send the power back down the wire and, as you said, convert to hydrogen centrally.

My question looks silly now in contrast, but it was thought up considering that grid buyback isn't going so well in the us, and focusing on a safe way to store and use hydrogen as a battery competing with flywheels or lithium battery cells, or centralized pumped hydro, etc. Just a hypothetical.

Pollution is undesirable on earth because it causes us harm from which we can't escaoe or reverse.

The idea of "polluting" spacetime makes no more sense than humans "polluting" the natural organization of air molecules by displacing them by existing, or polluting the natural distribution of entropy by making decisions.

It's just bringing politics into a place where it doesn't belong.

Could you store renewable energy via electrolysis, and instead of having storage tanks of dangerous hydrogen at home, pump the gas back into a grid? Most houses have natural gas lines and those are relatively safe. Would it be viable to have "hydrogen lines" that just ran in reverse when excess renewable energy is produced? Then draw off it to a home fuel cell during peak demand?

You recommend soccer but discourage running because it's competitive?

I would like to see a similar evolution in paperwhite displays. To have a 17" or larger display with a tiling window manager stacked with urxvt terminals running zsh and vim.

I think this would be a great alternative UI conducive to concentrating on coding. And give my eyes a break from a glowing screen. It would also be useful outdoors which might open up new possibilities for sustained outdoor programming.