winkeltripel

You won't get downvoted just for having right-wing ideals, but you can't just assert controversial beliefs without backing, like "There shouldn't be a social safety net". The counterargument is simple: "I desire a high quality of life in my country, and that correlates with a social safety net. Most countries with high quality of life have excellent social programs: universal healthcare, universal youth education, robust unemployment [1]".

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r...

> Companies should always be evaluating how critical their in house technology is to thier business and/or future product roadmap.

For these sort of deep-expertise support teams, they would have to be considered over very long time horizons, since a kernel or JVM team might be needed to deal with a serious bug at any time, but there may not have been such a bug this year.

That's a great idea. The arguments against both are nearly identical, from my perspective.

There's a big difference in these scenarios, in that the argument FOR vaccine passports is much stronger, in that the vaccines provide some level of herd immunity. There is no evidence that voter fraud is occurring at high rates in the US to have voter ID barriers (the alleged purpose, though not the true one).

Intent also matters. The intent of vaccine passports is to reinforce the importance of herd immunity, to emphasize the legitimacy of the vaccines, and to protect frontline workers. The real intent of Voter ID laws (and voter roll purging, etc) is to disenfranchise. The intent taints the process, even if some of the components are reasonable (more options for valid photo-ID, more rigorous proof-of-residence rules, and more careful record keeping, etc).

"Competition is the surest sign that there was not actually any anticompetitive conduct"

Anti-competitive conduct can be poorly executed, leaving some small room for competition, while still largely stifling new market entrants. A single 'competitor' isn't a healthy market. How many new small firms didn't get formed, or died on the runway to cash flow, because of Facebook?

You can ask an (abstract) artist to make an abstract likeness of you, to serve as your profile photo.

[Citation needed]

In the documentary 'inside bill's brain', you hear that regulatory problems led his team of physicists to look to China for a manufacturing partner and a location to build a new reactor (which the trade war between US and China also squashed). If they could have built it on US soil, they would have.

The idea is that you'd have to pay inheritance tax on the value of the building. The only way for someone without wealth to pay that would be to sell the building. The sale of an industrial site could take years, during which you'd owe a bunch of taxes.

Perhaps you don't see how once a product contains a censorship feature, it begs to be expanded. Each step appears reasonable, but at the far side, the censor is very restrictive.

The kernel maintainers don't need to show or prove anything, or owe anyone an explanation. The University's staff/students are banned, and their work will be undone within a few days.

The reputational damage will be lasting, both for the researchers, and for UMN.

Average exit event (going public or getting bought) won't out-pay working for FAANG. The chances that it does are like 10%, and that's if there is a real exit, instead of just a wind-down.

Compare the scale of the harm that you see to the direct benefits: these huge unions getting each and every member a solid benefits package, and better pay rates, overtime or limited hours. Even non-union jobs pay better in areas with high union membership. Its one of the only tools with broad benefits to working-poor and lower-class at the cost of the non-working rich.

I think it's an unfair argument to say that unions need further regulation. Regulating them is how we've lost millions of union jobs to contractors, and where we keep seeing large strikes broken up by governments. Regulations often benefit large players over small ones. We'd rather see a plethora of smaller, niche unions, than just one massive union. Competition breeds capability.

With the shrinking fraction of jobs which are unionized, is it really surprising that a younger crowd has no experience with it?

> also a mysogynyst (justifies rape and pedophilia)

Didn't the article cited debunk that? Citation needed for that claim.

He's very rigid and particular about language. He doesn't like the legal connection between age-of-consent and rape. He sees rape as this thing which MUST be forced, and MUST be violent. If it isn't both of those, it's not rape. He wants a different word for it, and a different charge. He can be very crude and inarticulate, but that opinion isn't invalid.

But this is what's been happening. It's happening in the bay area too.

But its like with electoral ballots. The paper mail is hard to copy without the carrier finding out, and has to be intercepted by a local.

Email cam be copied and sent wherever without the operators knowledge, from anywhere with internet, if they break into the mail daemon.

> If you've every made the buying decisions for an organization, you've been targeted individually before.

Mellanox seems to think I'll drop 50k on NICs again, and I need to be reminded that last time I bought from them. It's been 11 years since.

For a skilled researcher it may be an order of magnitude easier to write the whitepapar than to code the implementation.

I think it can switch drill bits to make fine-passes, and sanding/deburring. I could also be wrong, but I'm lazy enough to want that automated, so CNC probably does it.

The answer is always a boxfan taped to whatever filter you want to use.

If spending hours a day at 100% utility, SSDs will rarely last 5 years.

Signing bins as part of your build chain seems easy to me.

And atop each 'shadow IT' dept, is a 'shadow CIO'.

Not necessarily. Public domain and fair use don't require distribution to occur. Ex: Photos taken in the 1890s are public domain, and you may know that they exist (having seen a print in a no-photography-allowed museum), but the owner of the only copy of the photo is under no obligation to distribute them.

Nat, it wasn't even a DMCA claim. It was missing key components which distinguish a DMCA claim from a grumpy threatening letter. The only valid response was a blog post to shame the RIAA. Instead, shame has been brought upon github. Yall don't even read threatening letters before taking stuff offline?

There is a way forward, Nat. You can reinstate that repo today, and tell the RIAA that they cannot use your online tool. They have to send your legal representation (in Alaska to slow it down) a certified, hand-signed letter through snail mail. Make a big public show of this process, and get public mindshare on your side.

But the point of the article is that by paying too much for the property, the launderer drives the price of the market higher.

A large application has lots of implementation leak to the API, doesn't it?

Java may be more memory hungry, but 4gb of memory hasn't been enough for a wide array of tasks for about a decade now.

But they at least get a tax write off for a percentage of the value of the donation.

Well, those components are too small. I'd probably like to go full-sears and just have to attach the front and back half of my house together on a foundation.