You are a liar, at the very least, you are lying to yourself. You ban me for criticising socialism, not because of ideological battles. If you would care about ideology, you would ban the ideological subjects. For example Stallman's appointment was a frequent topic on here. I did not start those topics, and you let them stay.
Case in point: I did not make any submissions with this account. I only commented. So it doesn't make sense to claim I created the account for ideological battle.
It's also nonsense from you to claim that some discussion taking place in a deeply nested comment thread somehow distracts from what "HN is for". Those who don't care can simply gloss over it. I am not taking away any of your precious front page space.
Just admit that you can't stand criticism of socialism, and that is your basic motivation here.
But you need to be a SJW to reject due process and the principle of charity, and opt for maximum moral outrage to exert control and power. Your claim that he defended somebody in a sex trafficking ring is not actually true, for example. Either you are unaware of that and simply run with the narrative of the SJW ideology, which would be exactly the goal, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it, which would also make the point that it is about politics, not personal disgust.
Or explained in another way: apparently Stallman has not done anything illegal. So the people who insist on him being cut down want to install a new justice system. That's SJW ideology.
Strange, the flu disappears every year without any specific counter measures at all. I think citations are needed to prove Covid-19 would only go away with vaccinations and lockdowns.
Huh, that's nonsense. Every vaccination also carries risks, so there can be no moral obligation if the risks outweigh the benefits.
That said, I also disagree with the moral obligation. At the very least, there are also other scenarios to consider. For example if only a small group is at risk and can't be vaccinated (too risky), that small group could be isolated or choose to self isolate. Afaik it already happens with chemotherapy patients who are being isolated. There is no obligation for the rest of the world to disinfect everything and walk around in hazmat suits so that chemotherapy patients can walk freely in the outer world.
I used to feel like you, but I have come back to Java.
Other languages have other pains, for example I have physical revulsion against the version management hacks for python or ruby (rbenv and stuff like that - somehow hacking environment variables on the fly to manage multiple installations of the language).
Two years ago I wrote a small web app in Python and I found hosting very complicated, compared to Java. PaaS exist but are very expensive.
It's true that in theory it should be possible to elect another government that chooses not to delegate to the "Ethics Experts". I am not claiming we live in a totalitarian regime because the government decided to consult ethics experts.
It just seems that in this case, ethics are exactly what the people should be voting on - the value system of the society they want. So delegating to an ethics committee is at best propaganda and making excuses for not doing what the people want.
So why don't you buy? I am in the opposite position. I would like to buy something, but I can not find anything that would be worthwhile (mortgages lower than the rent I pay at the moment, or lower than rent I could ask for renting out).
In my opinion companies create such departments to stave off government regulation, by pretending to already do all they can about "Ethics in AI" without government intervention.
If those people were hired for that, they failed spectacularly in their jobs.
In a wider sense, the whole "Ethics in whatever" thing seems to just be a power grab.
For example my country has Ethics groups debating Corona measures. I live in a country that theoretically is a democracy. If "ethics experts" get to make decisions that control our lives, why bother with democracy?
A market working does not imply the creation of unlimited supply. Governments that restrict building are an external factor. Markets can only operate within those bounds. Since land for building is scarce, prices rise.
There are other factors, of course. Just speculation does not really seem to be a major one.
The basic need for a house is something different than owning a house, though.
If owning a place to live is too expensive, it follows by logic that renting is cheaper than buying. Otherwise for the price of the rent, people could get a loan to buy.
So it really doesn't seem obvious that this is an issue of rich vs poor.
Case in point: I did not make any submissions with this account. I only commented. So it doesn't make sense to claim I created the account for ideological battle.
It's also nonsense from you to claim that some discussion taking place in a deeply nested comment thread somehow distracts from what "HN is for". Those who don't care can simply gloss over it. I am not taking away any of your precious front page space.
Just admit that you can't stand criticism of socialism, and that is your basic motivation here.