samdoesnothing

It's obviously AI generated. Was a bummer because I was interested in the premise.

Sounds like taxes and government to me and that hasn't (so far) stopped people from building.

In fact many people here praise those gangs, and wish they were bigger and demand more money.

Isn't the obvious solution to build more houses (apartments, flats, whatever)? Like, isn't it incredibly obvious that there is actually a simple solution to this problem - build more so that there is an abundance of choice? How people come to the conclusion that in a densely populated and highly desirable area, the solution isn't building more capacity but rather to artificially cap prices?

It's like a database server running out of memory and the proposed solution isn't to increase memory, but rather just reject new entries into the DB because it's full.

It's kind of incredible how the obvious and true solution to rents being too high is to BUILD MORE HOUSES and yet somehow people manage to convince themselves that in fact, the real solution to rents being to high is to artificially cap their prices. Incredible stupidity.

I think they're suggesting that some problems are trivially solvable by humans but extremely hard to do with code - in fact the outcome can seem non-deterministic despite it being deterministic because there are so many confounding variables at play. This is where an LLM or other for of AI could be a valid solution.

I said ten years from now...

Golang doesn't have legions of evangelicals claiming it's a safe language and everything should be written in it.

That makes no sense. It was much longer than 10 years before people considered C to be tech debt for example. Idk if it will be 10 years exactly, but we are seeing better languages emerging (Swift 6, Mojo, probably others) that provide the same safety guarantees and performance/use case profiles as Rust, but are vastly more ergonomic and lovely to use. I fear Linux was hasty integrating Rust because it will likely prevent them from integrating something better in the near future.

Oh please, in a decade Rust will also be technical debt and people will be wanting to write it in Brust or whatever is the trendy new language.

It doesn't matter because the capacity to increase efficiency is virtually endless and we have a free source of power just 9 light-minutes away.

LOL. All the Rust evangelists talk about safety when stuff like this exists? JFC. Can we stop calling Rust safe now? Finally? I mean we all know deep in our hearts that trivial memory safety doesn't mean programs are correct or "safe" by any means but its nice to have proof that Rust is fundamentally unsafe for asynchronous tasks at least. Or at least "unsound".

Structured concurrency will always win IMO.

Consider this scenario:

You have a train hurtling down the track that forks into two groups of people, 10 in one and 5 in the other, some of the people go on to cure cancer and some are murderers and you don't know where they are. Also it's possible batman set up the scenario to kill the bad guys and by flipping the switch you kill the good guys. Or the Joker set it up and the reverse is true.

In this case, you could argue that you only have moral culpability by intervening. Unless you are absolutely sure you have full knowledge of the intended consequences by acting, you can absolve yourself of the moral culpability by non-intervention.

And since we don't know the long term consequences of political actions, there is at least an argument for non-intervention.

There's a double standard that I see a lot here, where people want to vote for a party, denigrate those who chose not to participate as being morally culpable for the results of the election, but won't take moral culpability for what their team does when they're in power.

If you vote for team A and they win and then do something bad (inevitable), shouldn't you be morally responsible for that? After all, you seem fine claiming non-participants have moral culpability for whatever the winning team does.

> you keep attempting to shift terms to mean something they do not.

> The "right to healthcare" means that your government should do its best to make sure people can see doctors and receive healthcare related treatment when they need it.

Yeah ok. I'm gonna bow out of this discussion now, since you're just accusing me of doing what you're in fact doing.

Well yeah, thats a problem with debates, if people are using different definitions then you end up talking around each other. I don't think the definition I use is unreasonable though. Slavery is fundamentally a matter of self-ownership, and taxation robs you of such self-ownership. Requiring resources to survive doesn't rob one of their own self ownership. Neither does working for a salary, although "wage slave" gets thrown around without much opposition to the term...

Anyways, rights exist a priori, regardless of the capacity for any power to enforce said rights. Negative rights don't actually require enforcement because they aren't coercive. Implying rights don't exist because people violate them doesn't make sense, it's irrelevant.

Think through your example about the doctor. If you (a doctor) and I are stranded on an island and I break my leg, the "right to healthcare" would imply that you are obligated to help me, and I have the moral right to coerce you (violently if required) to help me. Would you agree to this proposition?

Now of course most people who hold these beliefs haven't given it any thought beyond "I want people to be safe happy and healthy". But those who have, realise coercive violence is a base requirement and are fine with it, but obviously won't frame their beliefs in that way.

Well, I suppose we should define what we mean by "slavery" first because one could simply argue they aren't the same by definition. If it's something like "someone captured, sold, or born into chattel slavery", than obviously a tax payer is not a slave.

But under a loser definition, it's fairly obvious that an entity which takes part of the results of your labor under the threat of violence at least partially owns you, and thus it's reasonable to consider tax payers as slaves to their government.

I'm actually more interested in your argument for why they are mutually exclusive concepts.

Hmm, let me explain and then you can be the judge of that.

All rights that a person possesses implies obligations that everyone else must meet. For example, if I have the right to not be assaulted, that implies the obligation of others to not assault me. The difference between a negative and positive right is that the obligation for a negative right is inaction, but for a positive right it's action.

If you're forced to act in a specific way, you're robbed of your agency and ownership of yourself. What else would you call that?

What you're really asking is if fundamental individual human rights are desirable for individuals and community as a whole, which is of course a hotly debated topic. So yeah, it goes all the way down to fundamental questions like if we should have freedom of association.

Thats just positive versus negative rights, although people often frame positive rights as "freedom from", i.e. "the freedom from starvation", which is just the positive right to food.

Positive rights of course directly imply slavery so it makes sense people wish to frame them as negative rights.

A free market simply means that individuals are free to conduct consensual transactions with others. In other words, they aren't compelled through violence or the threat thereof, to make or not make transactions that they otherwise would.

Generally speaking, what all other definitions boil down to is Sam and Hanna wanting to make a consensual transaction, and some third party who has nothing to do with said transition interfering "for the greater good" or whatever. Which is nonsense, it's the complete opposite of freedom.

“People will say with a straight face that having one choice for dear leader is tyranny – but having two is freedom.”

By the way, it doesn't matter how many choices you have - if you can't chose the one you want, you don't have any freedom at all.

To me, freedom means to be free of obligations to others. I don't really see how an abundance of choice has anything to do with freedom...

What do you mean?

This seems like an orthogonal question to architecture doesn't it?

Am also Canadian. I hope when there is finally a shift of power in the federal government they use this bill and others like it to strip you and others who think like you of all your rights and freedoms.

Before you downvote, consider that by supporting this legislation this person wishes to do the same.

Oh come on, tons of rust evangelicals claim that if it compiles, it works.

Yes there is.

If they would have used a modern, safe programming language like rust those errors would be impossible to... oh wait...

Never mind.

I think if you actually spoke with them, many would make the same claims about the left. Many right wingers see the left as being equally evil, that doesn't mean it's true.

Uh, good for you? I do as well.

You say that not all right wingers are bigoted, and then go on to proclaim the entire group doesn't recognize minorities as being human. Have you spoken honestly and in good faith with right wingers?