victoro0

How would that imply lack of security? Wouldn't it be perfect if every single homicide by a stranger was by a cop? It would mean that a cop was there every time to stop the criminal before they hurt someone.

Well, yes, though a nuke would not detonate at ground level which would make it more destructive for most purposes (apart from bunker destruction). Plus 1kt is very very small for a nuke.

Would they really? I bet most people wouldn't want to go into space. A lot of people can now bungee-jump, fly their own planes, fly in a balloon, paraglide, deep dive, yet how many do any of these things.

Well the USSR used over 30 million people as slave labor in their gulags, which were mostly involved in construction works and natural resources extraction.

That can certainly advance things.

That's not at all what the article says. Naturally, it is good that the stock market goes up, i.e., the values of the companies goes up, if it's because of improved performance. The author argues the stock market is increasing more than it should based on increased inequality between the economy participants (stock holders, customers and employees), where one class of participant seem to be taking the biggest share of the pie. The author argues this creates a bubble situation that can lead to depressions.

Wouldn't cyber squatting laws just hand over the domain to their party if asked? They are even being asked for money, even if only in jest, which strengthens their case.

Internet speeds are usually measured in bits though, and include the protocols overhead, not just the final bytes transferred in HTTP.

Right now my download speed is 10.62Mbps and upload speed is 13.38Mpbs. That is some heavy throttling indeed.

It is unreasonable to deny the entire public of works of art that are culturally relevant.

Of course you could do anything, it is a very touristic city and Spain forces Castilian spanish to be taught in schools.

Also, you can tell the polls are not that favorable or the central govmt would have made a referendum on the issue.

Well of course. If he used examples that crashed and burned the reader would not have heard of them.

If the laws are good, if I agree with the means and the ends, then I do not mind the wrong people defending it, or for the wrong reasons.

So let's all sustain for a second our disbelief and ignore all the value judgments, governments and churches involved. The crux of the issue is that the law changed to require that artificial insemination be available only to couples.

In my own country it seems adoption is also only available to couples (either legally or de facto), and it is near impossible for a father to win a custody case when divorcing.

I think the wider trend here is prioritizing some ideal of what would be the best outcome for the (future) child and most of society believing a single parent would not do as good a job as a couple, on a significant averages comparison, and that men are inferior child rears as well.

I don't know if it is true, but living in a democracy means common wisdom, anecdotes and tradition bend scientific and informed decisions.

A nuke would not "desintegrate" steel-reinforced concrete buildings.

And is there anything at all wrong with separatism?

Are you serious?

Because I'm pretty sure there is some random "user experience checkbox" checked by default that somehow means some of the data is sent to Google so they can "improve their products and services" and what not, but don't worry because it is probably "anonymized" and will only be seen by "humans" or "AIs" depending on what feels less bad for the general public once discovered.

I think that a lot of people miss the point that most people don't care about updates. Most people want a phone that does the same thing when it was bought and as many years later as possible, as the battery allows.

It's the same thing around passwords. People don't use weak passwords or reuse their passwords because they don't know any better, they do it because they do not care about whatever is protected by the password. I personally couldn't care less if someone stole my Facebook or that some bad actor may abuse something in my phone to send something to China. These digital things rank very low on the list of my priorities, and like me are a lot of not very technical interested people.

Some people buy cheap phones knowing they won't get updates, we know, we don't care. And we are happy to have the option not to care, we do not want more expensive phone with constant updates, just like we don't want the mandatory use of password managers. If we cared we'd buy/use them.

It's time people realize that a great deal of scientific papers are just written as a requirement to finish a masters/doctors degree, or are just about meeting the yearly publication quotas of the department. I know very proficient writers that probably haven't written a single article worth reading.

Yes, because "pedophile" right now just means "horrible person", when it actually had a definition already - "person sexually attracted to prepubescent/pubescent children". And this makes it much harder to actually have a conversation about pedophilia and how to prevent pedophiles from hurting children and themselves.

So yes, this is a conversation much more worthwhile than whether Stallman is a bad person.

But they will be anonymous and the level of conversation will probably not be very high.

I really, really, do not understand why some people's reaction to this is trying to get him fired or to apologize.

Right here we have one human being that will ponder on random issues and offer his honest opinion. He will do it without regard for social pressure. This is an incredible rare thing! This is an amazing thing, go browse your Facebook or LinkedIn feed and see how "authentic" it sounds. What's more, this gentleman is a very rational person and does not shy away from thinking about pedophilia and various paraphilia. What's more he seems truly inquisitive in understanding how to measure what Minsky did, what motivations and perceptions each participant had, etc. This is so much more important than just getting revenge, being constantly angry on the internet or just saying Epstein was evil and calling it a day.

We need much, much more people like Stallman and much, much less people that will cry foul on a Medium post when someone doesn't go along with what they want.

He is technically correct though.

I don't get what the author is complaining about. That there are too many aspiring musicians? That there is not enough public demand?

I see the meritocracy working perfectly here, on average the richest students had the best training and equipment, and as such developed into the best musicians (and without the injuries mentioned), therefore they have the most merit to make a career of it.

No one is born knowing how to play a viola, what careers are there where your training is not reflected in your merit?

Or maybe attend a peaceful protest asking for political change.

Because the issue mentioned begs the question, since there isn't any reason why the boys wouldn't be feeling similarly.