tesmar2

Edited with examples.

> they need to pay for them by funding schools

I want a populace educated in those fields, and there are much betters way to do it than robbing the citizenry. One way might be to agree to work for a company afterwards who might pay for it, another to join the army in exchange for paying for it. Another might be to stop ensuring loans so that prices fall and become attainable to someone working part-time and going to school. Loans become not such a burden then, if you even want them. Lots of ways.

> low cost

Not low cost. They tax the hell out of their citizens.

> On the other hand, I don't think it's a healthy situation if companies need to own the entire hardware platform to be safe from another company's whims.

That's the risk you take working on someone else's platform. If you don't like it, start your own or conform to the new, privacy-enhancing features.

No, lol. I don't think I'd want it either. But it's a moot point, currently.

I never said it was the only barrier, but it is far and away the primary barrier. Google was laying fiber in many cities but the regulatory burden was quite stifling.

As far as justification, it goes the other way around. If you want to interfere in the free market, you need to provide good justification that this problem is not being created by the regulatory environment already. 99.9% of the time, it is.

> the presumption should be regulation.

No.

The presumption should be making it easy to enable competition, which the current rules don't do. Make it easy for Google to come in and lay fiber on their own dime.

Instead of such an overreach, we should go the other direction towards a freer market. We should get rid of the red tape that lets these cable companies hold a monopoly so that companies like Google can come in and lay fiber at their own expense if they so desire.

So for search they are not a monopoly, not even close.

For iOS/Android, I'm not seeing a problem just because they are popular. Is there some specific legislation you would like passed which would interfere and most likely overreach into their companies?

Like you said, it's not cut and dry because there isn't a monopoly. If an upstart company came along and wanted to make a new mobileOS, I wish them well. If Google or Apple did something wrong to interfere with their success, bring a suit at that time with specific claims.

No, you can't be Twitter, a platform under the law and enjoying all the associated perks, and then censor the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop. You step into publisher territory at that point and open yourself up to liability. You also can't go and ban the whitehouse press secretary, same deal.

If Twitter would act honorably and allow open conversation, conversations that obviously don't contain death threats, etc, then there would be no need or even desire for an alternate platform.

The problem is that Twitter is acting illegally with its censorship, since it enjoys platform status and all the perks associated, but can ban conservative content.

Everyone should be on Twitter, saying whatever non-illegal political content they want, but they can't because Twitter is disobeying the law.

Because of Youtube/Twitter/FB selective showing of content outside of the good faith clause, they should be liable, yes. Keep the law, just enforce it. If you're not going to enforce it, you might as well get rid of it.

They currently enjoy unlimited immunity in a way the spirit of the law does not allow. You can't enjoy tax breaks etc. of being a platform and then go and ban content that you don't agree with, but which is not harmful in the way the law lets you do. I.e. the law lets you remove illegal content, but if you are being treated as a platform, you can't just go and, oh, I don't know, not let the New York Post show a breaking story about Hunter Biden's laptop.

No, we're saying that currently the platforms enjoy unlimited immunity.

Courts have departed from the most natural reading of the text by giving internet companies immunity for their own content. Section 230(c)(1) protects a company only when content is "provided by /another/ information content provider". Nowhere does this provision protect a company that is itself the information content provider.

And an information content provider is not just the primary author or creator, it is anyone "responsible, /in whole or in part/, for the creation of development" of the content. (words of justice Thomas)

I'm not talking about why someone might move out of Silicon Valley, but as a response to the gp, explaining that the policies aren't being imported from CA. They're being home grown, in TX, in the government schools.

If the parents value fiscal conservatism and traditional values, they'll pull their kids out of government schools and teach them themselves. This will also strengthen the family bonds, weakening the power of the state to make such bad calls.

I'd imagine the owners will, but who knows about the employees. Liberalization in general is happening through the government schools. Pull the kids out, teach them at home or put them in a private school you trust.

Then 230 protections should be removed.

The article on HN about the ban got something like 3 /thousand/ comments, very high for HN. I don't think these people are out of the mainstream, I think a big nerve was hit.

> Brave’s shortcomings

What would those be?

> The issue is that Google can unilaterally kill or make other businesses through their search.

I don't see how this answers my statement. Of course they can, it's their platform. I'm sure MS pushes their new browser on bing. There's another thread open today where people have listed a ton of alternates so one can de-google. I did it 2 years ago, it's been fine. Apple Maps is much better than it used to be, bing is better than it used to be. Lots of email options.

Google would lose a lot of customers if they did that. If that's ok with them, it's their business to drive into the ground.

I switched to Bing for search, it's great.

> it could utterly devastate all sorts of players in the market

That's the risk you take if you bank your entire business off of your search rank on Google. You should diversify accordingly.

This fuzziness you speak of has lead to massive overreach in the past, and it needs to stop.

Hopefully not. They are not a monopoly and doing so would be a severe overreach.

Edit: Looks like many don't understand that you have alternatives to Google and you can use them.

Ah thanks!

Is there any note on if F# will gain concepts/type classes?

I understand. What euphemism should I use in the future when discussing what goes on when making these vaccines?

Once again, tell that to those poor souls.

Even if I believed your numbers, this does not take away your right to self defense from a robber or tyrant.

Right but this whole thing could have been avoided, impropriety and all, if the incentive were eliminated, which also has the tidy side effect of aligning with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

> There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed

That’s up to them, they can decide what kind of arms are carried.

Infringing on tyrants’ right to life is the point of the 2nd amendment.

Yes but you shouldn’t need a permit to get one, in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Having permits just makes 2 classes of people, those with connections to the sheriff and regular Joes.

In the spirit of the 2nd amendment, you shouldn’t need a permit. Also happens to close one avenue for corruption.