throwaways885

But this is precisely a problem because of the demonetization that occurs on anything sensitive. These podcasts can't easily sustain themselves on a platform that actively de-ranks their content.

Preferably, all of them. More selfishly, funding basic science has economic advantages (plus you get to keep the smart people).

In one contiguous block too. I think you can do it more than once.

I think the big difference between is how Epic treats its customers and how Valve treats its customers. Epic could've gone the GOG Galaxy route ("use it, or not, your choice"), but they decided to force people into their watered down launcher before it was ready. Even Xbox is being more open lately.

You can't just match your competition, you have to exceed it in some special way before people will switch.

Americans really do get the short end of the stick. Having to pay full whack to fund healthcare development while single payer systems just take the result at bargain basement prices.

The only solution is to fund basic science research directly and remove the perverse incentives, but (as an outsider) it seems America does not have the political will to do anything so bold right now.

I still can't believe the amount of people that make the "like using a chain-link fence to stop mosquitos" analogy...

> Every person that values freedom, individuality, and prosperity should reject any policy or law that is based on a "greater good" narrative

Curious what you think about COVID lockdowns then

The subtitle might give more context:

> Déby had ruled for 30 years and won a sixth term in elections last week

It wasn't about UX. When Android users join iOS conversations, they lose the ability to use stickers, high quality pictures, etc... But instead of bringing iMessage to Android, Apple has intentionally created a way to get teenagers to look down on non-Apple users (yes, it's seen as a major status symbol, too) to promote their products.

As a teenager I felt pushed out of conversations because I was an Android user, and got written off as a green bubble.

A more profitable business is slightly worse for society now, but much much better in terms of long term tax revenues.

> There's ample evidence otherwise in the body of social sciences. Cooperation is a fundamental characteristic found all across nature and is a pillar of human civilizations throughout the ages. I would argue it takes a lot of resources/energy to coerce people into NOT sharing, like when school teachers will try to make you believe copying is cheating despite your guts telling that helping one another is perfectly fine.

Selfishness absolutely is a human characteristic too. We are not inherently bad, but we are not inherently good either. Our entire evolutionary chain is defined by ruthless competition, wars, etc... We as humans do not tend to play well with more than a few dozen people outside "our tribe". It's the reason I would die for my one individual in my family, but don't bat an eyelid at Covid death statistics.

> No, it's a problem with money and profit and does not only affect America. The same issues have reached the UK and every other place where "neoliberalism" got a foothold. In fact, even in France where neoliberalism isn't quite established just yet and education is still rather cheap (<500€/year in public universities), most students are forced to have a sidejob because the study grants they receive are not enough to live (hardly pays for rent) and the student status does not grant you other social benefits (need to be over 25 to have support from the State).

Higher education is supposed to be an investment. Not free. Personally, I love the idea of becoming an indie developer, but until I've produced something valuable enough for others to enjoy, why should I get to do it without having another job alongside? Remember, as a student, the taxpayer (your parents, your grandparents, friends, enemies, friendly robots, etc...) are all paying for you to go to university in the first place. It's not for you, but for greater society as a whole.

The fact that school is cheap in France is a boon for arts and culture. There is nothing wrong with having to put in hard work for dreams.

> It is not. In fact, state violence can only be used to PREVENT people from sharing. If there was no police, there would be no poverty because we'd have expropriated the rich long ago, as the vast majority of people agree that's the only sane thing to do. Or do you know a lot of people defending banks and billionaires? Personally i don't know a single one in my neighborhood.

Stealing from the well-to-do is a really generous redefinition.

Let's say we gut the 1% and take everything they have. What happens next? Some of that money will undoubtedly go towards building businesses, etc... and then the next 1% comes around. The smartest ones will flee the country, because they know that any success will be punished by having their life work taken by the state. It actively dis-incentives any innovation or development that isn't rewarded top-down.

I'm not here to be offended, only to disagree with the framing (and provide the additional context I think is more productive for this conversation). You can make those comments all you like.

The ultimate reason I disagree is that the users of DDG don't seem to influence their algorithm. I don't believe DDG is treating users like Google (and shaping results based on interests of the userbase).

> lots of lonely white men

We don't need that kind of rhetoric on HN.

Part of the reason I suspect Bing/DDG return right-leaning content is because grassroots US internet culture itself slants slightly to the right (as it slanted to the left back 10 years ago). Whereas Google pushes authoritative sources heavily, which tend to skew corporate-left.

Corporate content is less likely to push flagrant untruths (unlike grassroots extremists on either side), and what propaganda there is, is usually much more subtle.

A balance is needed, to be sure.

Go read a history book. Rejecting slavery wasn't extreme, in fact, America fought a civil war in no small part due to it. Something with half the support of a country is not extreme.

State capitalism is the only viable implementation of communism. Humans will not share unless co-opted, so the use of violence is required for the proletariat to seize resources.

> What about a society in which nobody has to worry for a place to sleep and food to feed their children?

We have this society, today. There are a few outliers, and yes, life is tough for many (most?), but we are way way better off as compared to any other time in history.

> In which nobody has to work side gigs to pay for education or health bills?

This is an issue with America, not capitalism. Fight for single payer and to cap student loans to ~$10,000/year like most other countries did.

> Communism is when power and resources are shared, which is what the Soviet (workers councils) revolution was about before the Bolsheviks (Lenin's sect)

This is an issue in itself though. If state violence is required to force people to share, then anyone who co-opts control of the state is suddenly in the position of a dictator, with effectively unlimited power over all resources. Capitalist parliaments are a magnet for psychopaths, true, and it's worse in a communist system because the only way you can survive is by making sure the ones in charge like you.

> Capitalism is just as rude as Mao's rule, you just can't see it if you're part of the tiny privileged elite (as most of us on HN are)

Excuse me, but I make ~O(£20k) per year. I am not rich, nor am I poor, but you can fuck right off calling me part of "the tiny privileged elite".

To be honest, after that statement, I cannot any further path for good faith debate here, so I will leave it at that.

Give a viable alternative that doesn't descend into fascism. Capitalism is called the 'least worst' system for a reason, and some countries have an excellent QoL under it.

Bi-directional interfaces are not necessary for BCI to be useful - I would pay good money for a digital copy of my memories. Just think about how that could be used to treat patients with Alzheimer's if they had a library of memories on-demand.

As much as I hate DRM, it isn't something most consumers care about. The real selling points like the iPod's storage, case, materials, and branding were mainly unmatched for a long time.

Turn showdead on. I too, am concerned about some of the groupthink on HN, but it's not as severe as you'd suspect. What I do disagree with is comments being flagged/obliterated for simply being unpopular.

Do you count the UK or just EU countries? London still has top class developer jobs going, but I assume it's much harder to get in nowadays.

Half of that going to tax is terrible for the business's cash flow. That and the abysmal interest rates just incentivise businesses to waste money rather than save it for a rainy day.

Funding for the NHS has massively increased YoY. Ageing population is the issue and it's not as easily solved with money as you might suspect.

> I understand that I'm a higher earner, and therefore naturally am going to be paying high taxes, but paying over 50% just seem wrong.

I have to agree with you. A huge number of regular (albeit comfortable) people, also pay > 50% in income tax. When they complain about "the 1%", it's because they see people like you having the means to get out of this system. They're angry you're not suffering alongside them.

Also, people tend to use 1% of the United States, not 1% of the world.

It's easy to be angry if you're only looking up the totem pole.

> And once you're paying taxes, there's no point to buy health insurance separately, as you will automatically qualify for "free" healthcare.

The downside of socialised health care is the extensive waiting lists for everything.

I live under the NHS, and while it's a brilliant system, I do understand those with the means wanting to avoid it.

Everytime I see the words "engineer a society" is just freaks me out. They are supposed to be grown from the bottom up, not engineered top-down.

No, freedom of speech really does imply some protections, such as not getting instantly fired or jailed for your opinions.

As another commenter pointed out, the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF. The larger issue is a tiny minority have decided it is unacceptable to have this conversation and he must go ASAP.

Historical lynchings do not justify current day lynchings.

Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build.

If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equivalent.