14,819 karma · joined March 17, 2015
We haven’t decided this.
> having something from the government that will say "Yep. He is who he claims."
You’re literally trading liberty for convenience.
I understand your position. I just fundamentally disagree that the tradeoff you are so eager to make is worthwhile.
What attributes should require proof? Where do you draw the line?
Age?
Gender?
Race?
Religion?
Political party?
Citizenship?
> We'll get there eventually, but not before we try everything else first.
We got here by trying everything else first.
The “good old days” are now. Thousands of years of progress and blood delivered our liberal societies. Don’t give it up so easily.
This is Chesterton’s Fence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
The government is efficient without qualification.
People just like to complain and Reagan was charismatic so we’re cursed with this government inefficiency meme. We’re programmed to repeat it even when providing counter examples.
The overwhelming majority of the waiting I do in life is at the hands of private organizations who are unwilling to invest in proper staffing.
There will no doubt be replies to the contrary but to them I say they have identified corruption, not inefficiency. When the government doesn’t work it is by choice.
What does an "identity verification" company even do?
Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it.
I don’t remember if the area of a triangle in my geometry homework was 5 or 7 and it genuinely doesn’t matter. What I do remember is that formulas are generalized way to solve problems.
Nobody needs to remember the content of fictional literature. But malleable brains do need to examine it critically so they can examine anything critically.
A book report is simply a demonstration that you can ingest and comprehend non-trivial information. That’s it. The content is irrelevant.
A book report on Timothy Zahn’s Star Wars novels serves the same purpose. But your instructors need to be familiar in order to assess your competency so they stick with the classics.
Having completed book reports on any topic at all better prepares you to study history (or any topic) later in life because it is literally just “how to internalize information”.
20 years is the midpoint between the Wright Brother’s flight and operational jet fighters. They won the race but it was very much a competition. If Orville and Wilbur didn’t cross the line first then Maxim or Langley would have. They all built on George Cayley’s work.
So no, I don’t think the first one to file a plausible patent should get exclusive rights. It should at least extend to contemporaries. And we should consider the cost to innovation when breakthroughs are artificially constrained for what amounts to multiple technological generations.
If I certify my racist thanksgiving ruining uncle is a real person that doesn’t actually help you avoid misinformation.
I honestly don’t care if the information I consume comes from a person or a robot. I only care if it is accurate or not. Those dimensions are orthogonal.
When I searched for that quote on Kagi I found https://www.jdn.co.il/news/2210880/ (https://archive.is/IFhqo)
As translated by Firefox 153.0.1 on Fedora 44:
> Ben-Gvir wondered: “What about being more offensive? Why not take all the gunmen off at funerals? Take a few times off at the air at funerals. Why don’t you put a helicopter in the air and kill 40-30 terrorists?” Transport Minister Miri Regev joined Ben-Gvir and said: "This is a great idea."
> The Chief of Staff replied: “We are doing a lot of offensive operations. Collecting weapons. I have a little more military experience than you. When the IDF goes to the heart of a refugee camp every night, it's an attack, not a defense. There aren't many armies that can lift such operations. The IDF is acting offensively and distinctly. In a crowded environment you need to know who you kill and who you don't. We've often entered funerals, weddings and birthdays, we do it professionally. When we kill those we should kill and not kill innocent people.”
> However, it seems that the Chief of Staff’s response did not satisfy Ben-Gvir, who answered: “This attack is to kill terrorists in masses. You have great opportunities at funerals that they come and not take advantage of.”
Kagi and Google give similar translations. The provided quote seems to be the first paragraph in this translation. More context in the article.
> This unidentified vendor provided “hardware, software and cloud-storage services” for storing the public broadcaster’s archival materials and other data.
You did the same thing you criticize the author for doing.
You might not care but Sinclair very much does.
Krugman: "I've been writing some about downsides of technological change and I realized afterwards that if I really wanted a really stellar example of a productive important innovation that had terrible effects on society would be the cotton gin."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJxQbfbpf7M&t=25m38s
Richardson: "I always have a hard time articulating this, but the number of large plantations in which enslavers owned in air quotes, you know, more than 25 or more than 50 other human beings was a very very small proportion of the American South, less than 1%. The majority of people who again owned their black neighbors had one or two enslaved people on their farms. They weren't necessarily called plantations. And they would be working alongside those black Americans. And the cotton gin could have made small farms viable and could have ended human enslavement. And instead what they gave us was, you know, the the Trail of Tears in the 1830s that cleans indigenous Americans out of the southwestern land. You get an extraordinary land rush into the American South in the 1830s and the 1840s. And you get the establishment of these gigantic essentially factory farms. And that's a place where, you know, the majority of southerners, obviously the indigenous southerners and the black southerners, wanted no part of this system, but it actually didn't serve the white farmers either. It served a really small, less than 1% group of American enslavers in the American South. And you look at that and you think that wasn't the technologies fault. That was the fault of the people who um who set up the political system that enabled it to work that way."