rmrfrmrf

Bill Gates also doesn't support the Green New Deal or government involvement (god forbid his taxes go up) in mitigating climate change. His public prayers for a technocratic solution to climate change are ridiculous and embarrassing for him considering he knows it will never happen.

is there evidence that soldiers follow their rules of engagement?

It's 15 months, not years.

The only part of your argument that's relevant is the part about selling personal information for profit. The rest is immaterial to the problem with unregulated industry, and in fact incorrect when it comes to the end-result of things like "political polarization". Governments and private companies are more than happy to see the mass organization and demonstrations of the 20th century turn into yelling at auntie on Facebook. Social media is the /dev/null of critical thought; a pressure valve for grievances that can be quickly assuaged by faves. The polarization of views online just makes us more silent IRL, much to the delight of our employers.

Nothing more than a cynical play by Microsoft to get a seat at the table for the inevitable avalanche of regulation coming.

> too busy counting their money.

Or lack of money. The current economy, even for those in the professional class (given the absurd costs of living in tech cities), is designed to maximize precarity and force people into such a hustle mentality that they can barely pay attention to the world around them. It is truly the billionaire class vs the rest of us. We're all in this together.

I mean, regulation was introduced due to the Three Mile Island meltdown. Acting like it's irrational to regulate an industry that has proven itself unable to self-regulate is entirely dogmatic, especially given the disastrous consequences.

Furthermore, the Trump administration is already deregulating the nuclear industry, so you're getting your wish.

Meanwhile, incidence rates of thyroid cancer continue to rise.

The point of every Vox article is to justify the existence of Matthew Yglesias-style centrist neoliberal wonks. "All problems are too complicated for the average American to understand! The answer is always somewhere in the middle! Go to sleep and let the adults in the room handle this!"

I'm guessing it's the VW part people are against since they cheat on their emissions tests.

Deregulation of nuclear cannot and will not ever happen.

If it's really the case that the only way to make nuclear viable is to deregulate the industry, then Bernie is absolutely right that we need to end reliance on nuclear power.

Twitter is all about broadcasting people's unfiltered thoughts.

From my perspective, HyperCard lives on in 2 distinct branches: webapps and PowerPoint.

This was my gut reaction, but on further thought, this whole thing seems so needlessly petty that it could have easily been the author attempting to make the other person look bad.

Remember this the next time a photographer cries about "theft" of their intellectual property on social media.

That's nice and all, but the reality is that these multinational companies actively and willingly accept these terms (and more!) in order to exploit Chinese labor. The rhetoric about IP and censorship is all bark, no bite because the people at the top knew exactly what they signed up for.

I have a friend who has done the "just get the cheapest thing" for the past few years. Unfortunately, the cheapest has been Rachel Ray Nutrish in the clearance bin, which is on the list.

Proprietary messengers are never secure.

Not sure if this is the same issue, but apparently the cheaper insulin syringes are thicker and cause more pain and bruising. From my understanding, these are shots that need to be administered several times a day in perpetuity. The savvy consumer's options are chronic physical pain or poverty. With that in mind, would you still suggest that people go with the cheaper option?

This is how I see it, too. Colleges at this point are just siphoning money out of the federal government by jacking up tuition by rates several times the rate of inflation every year, and it doesn't take much effort to realize that the next generation of students will have to take on insane amounts of debt to gain even the opportunity of entry to the professional class. Even nowadays I have a hard time believing the pseudonymous internet bootstrappers who somehow paid for a bachelor's degree in 2012 by waiting tables between classes.

The thing is, given a large enough voting bloc, you can vote out everyone that disagrees with you and pass sweeping legislation without needing to compromise. The goal is to force every legislator in Congress to pick a side for the sake of knowing who to vote out.

If we're getting into company-specific bans, I'd much rather be using the one that banned Palantir than one that bans FAANG, and the one that banned Palantir resulted in a massive backlash.

The author is suggesting to curb source-available licenses by modifying open source licences to become... source-available licenses.

Every content site implements AMP for fear of losing Google traffic, not because customers wanted or demanded it.

Not sure what to make of this. All of the points the author makes are obvious; of course a project originated at Google would have a majority-Google membership. Of course anyone is free to fork Go. Of course the code can be considered FOSS. Of course execs at Google couldn't care less about spec details. None of those things disprove the point that Go is not a community-driven project.

I think I've mentioned this a while back, but one only needs to look to the Guava library team to see what Google's general position is on community contribution: contributors need not apply. The maintainers there blogged at-length about the inferiority of non-Googlers and the tedium of dealing with the unwashed masses -- typical NIH syndrome -- this is the same philosophy that the Go team is influenced by, perhaps with only a less hostile tone.

The difference between an OpenJDK and an OpenGo project, in practice, would be that the two would be completely unrelated. Go core would go on ignoring community progress and, at best, Google would sue for the project to change the name and force a hard fork.

Many mortgage backing companies still routinely deny loans to black people because their models inversely correlate black homeowners to lower surrounding property values. When a mortgage backer also backs the loans of those same surrounding properties, the risk of losing money on their existing loans increases, thereby leading them to deny the loan and perpetuating racist policy from a so-called "objective" model-driven business decision.

It's not as simple as "just make sure it works on everyone". Even if it were physically possible to capture the face of all 7 billion people on Earth, you'd start running into issues of false positives/negatives, overfitting, etc., and furthermore it would basically require every person to be periodically scanned from birth until death to ensure that the algorithm can recognize new faces.

> Prohibition doesn't work

You're appropriating sociological behaviors of the individual to maxims at the corporate level, which is ridiculous. Corporations need to be regulated, not coddled in some kind of convoluted, scaled-up, harm-reduction policy.

I didn't even know until about a month ago that the USPS is one of the only constitutionally-mandated federal institutions (in school, we focused a lot on the Bill of Rights, not so much on the articles themselves).