That those forest fires that could have been avoided are "natural" and that i shouldn't care about the negligent pollution of air or the planet since i should just "move away" ?
I'm having a hard time squaring any of this with the outrage you've displayed in your other comments about a well being drilled.
Can you cite a single reputable source that backs your claim that, specifically, the forest fires in California that released enough smoke and carbon that they reddened skies as far north as Seattle are part of the "Natural cycle" and are "Carbon Neutral"?
Excuse me? I'm not sure if you're serious. Given you're the CTO at attentive, i'd expect a better attempt at a substantive argument while commenting on a public thread on HN.
The bill of rights, which is a part of the constitution clearly declares that rights are God given and any rights enshrined in that document does not take away from that.
I respectfully disagree. There are conflicting provisions under law, but the widely accepted standard is a declaration "by a qualified medical professional"[1]As another comment here helpfully points out, there are scenarios such a person going missing for a legally mandated number of years before being declared legally dead[2]
I'm not fully convinced the courts got this one completely right.
This is a very interesting legal argument and lays emphasis on the need for legislators to express their intentions in writing more fully as opposed to writing laws with such loose and widely applicable terms such as "Life" without giving the term or their intent in using it more context.
If, as the Judge argues, that "he did not legally die as his presence in this courtroom indicates":
1. He's indicating the existence of a written law stating that a person may only die once.
2.Additionally, there are actually legal provisions that delegate to the medically accepted definition of "Death" instead of deciding it themselves.
3. The Judge indicates that ruling in the plaintiffs favor would cause chaos for situations where medically induced resurrections would confuse laws from insurance to banking. That is not the plaintiffs burden to bear. That does not sound like a valid reason to rule on the interpretation of a law.
Finally, and i believe the most important part here: The US Constitution lays liberty and freedom at the heart of individual rights conferred upon people from God or a superior force. All laws enforced by the Government must be explicitly legislated within these bounds since it prevents the default case moving from "Individual God given rights, unless expressly regulated within constitutional boundaries" to "Rights conferred by the Government discretion" -> The second case is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
The burden of legislation (And clearly elucidating intent) is upon the Legislative body. By leaving ambiguous the part within the letter of the law that regulates individual liberties for individuals found guilty of a crime, the Legislative has "given up" their jurisdiction in the edge case scenario which is in front of the court since it is "undefined" - This would have been a great case for the courts to weigh in and restrict legislative over reach and force more clearly written laws.
For those who think this is picking on too many nits - it sets precedent. A better example for argument might be the tax code and the popular saying that there is no living person capable of declaring that they are fully operating within the letter of the tax code due to the many levels of discretionary interpretation it allows.
Precisely. When you also factor in the productivity derived from an increased access to learning resources on the internet and industrial scale production of equipment that would have been unimaginable in the early 19th century. . .OF COURSE the productivity of almost all fields of the arts has increased significantly.
The concept of a performance isn't limited to the few minutes the artists are on stage, the quality of the performance and what it takes to get there are built over years and this has been very nicely democratized over even the past decade than at most times in Human history.
That'll drive them to use encrypted channels without oversight. The functioning of many a government agency isn't a derivation of the official processes. The official processes and record keeping are something that needs to be "Worked around" in many of these agencies.
The foundation of America as a country was based upon the Founding Fathers deep mistrust of the concentration of power. They used the word "Government" to describe this back then, but today, the influence of governmental agencies, private corporations and large unions with outsize decision making powers all threaten regularly the exercise of individual liberty as this case shows.
The answer is to return power to the people. The default scenario shouldn't be that someone gets arrested for whatever reason an unelected bureaucrat decides. Government or their agencies should have to request express permission to breach an individuals liberties and not the rubber stamp BS they follow now with warrants that require a threshold that's more likely than not to be granted on a mere suspicion. Transparency in this process is much more key to the honest functioning of Government than many others.
Much too often, for the sake of brevity or to just follow a routine, judges and the people entrusted with safeguarding these liberties and acting as a check tend to obfuscate much of the process or worse, leave it up without the possibility of contesting the decision until after severe actions such as remand are carried out. We need to reinforce individual liberties.
This isn’t reddit. Please don’t downvote because you disagree, try and have a reasonable discussion. Read my comment again and please tell me where I cited emissions per capita. If you’re simply going to normalize data without an explainer, might as well do emissions over GDP and find the most efficient economies since the crux of the argument is around economic value of energy.
Your wiki source is based on world bank data and only goes through 2014. Here’s a more recent estimate: [1]
I have my doubts on the efficiency of the carbon tax as a mechanism to effectively reduce emissions but am willing to be persuaded by data that shows otherwise. But that is a topic for another time and does nothing to disqualify any of the points I made above.
It's amazing to me how most of these predictions refrain from calling out the single largest polluters in the world, China, from changing their behavior or doing anything substantial. In particular, this paragraph at the end:
> In Chicago Thursday, he prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made by political candidates, and executives of fossil fuel companies who continue to pursue activities that are exacerbating climate change—especially those who mislead the public about those effects.
Really? Can you, as a man of science stand behind such vitriol as an outburst for what is arguably at best a theory with a lot of room for error? Specifically:
> "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said
Based on WHAT? This man is making a claim for the complete wipe out of roughly seven million cubic miles of ice in the next three years? Even if one were to be charitable and entertain a massive error margin on this claim, based on data about the polar cycles it seems extremely unlikely. This is nothing but an attempt to use "Science" to create panic.
I strongly agree that we need to do more on the environment, but there's got to be a better answer than killing off a major chunk of the commercial markets and industry that have contributed to the single most prosperous period in human history. Can scientists please not make recommendations on policy? I'd love to hear scientific solutions . . just the other day, there was a discussion here on HN about using energy from a nuclear reactor to recycle atmospheric carbons. Practical or not, i'd love to see us innovate our way out of this hole while continuing to be reasonably responsible with our environmental decisions.
Quality of life in the country side in my opinion, tends to be far better than what you'd find even in the best of cities, but that's a personal opinion and one that individuals should be able to make on their own.
If you'd like to live in a dense concrete jungle, then, yes, you should be able to do so for your own reasons.
On the other hand, if you'd like to move away from a dense swath of people, you should have that option as well and having connectivity to amenities should be reasonably available.
We have the technology and ability to do so today and allowing citizens to inhabit any patch of available land in a nation that's allocated to residential purposes is fine.
Boy, you should have been around when the pioneers were around! We'd have saved Trillions just staying in what is now New York.
The arguments around treating rural living areas as sub-standard places of investment simply because of your inability to reason with potential future demand/growth/needs is astounding to me.
The fact is, as cities become more and more dense, they tend to be less attractive to families or individuals for that matter looking to live an active life. Take even very well "planned" cities such as Singapore for example, you would hate living there for a year or more given how tiny the homes are and how expensive everything is. . .Your complaints about your parents location needing living facilities is pretty one sided given you're calculating the bottom line assuming no one else who buys property there has the access to the same, isn't it? If you apply the same logic to the post war highway projects, it would seem that those were money pits if the economic benefits and lifetime usage were completely ignored.
Please do not skew your logical analysis of a subject by what seems to be a pre-existing bias against a section of the population.
I disagree. Many of these tech companies, Google included, are indeed too big and exert outsize influence on a variety of fields, but saying they aren't "accountable" to their employees isn't entirely accurate.
As an employee in one of these companies, you have far more control over product strategy, direction, actual execution etc that i simply struggle to find in most if not all other sectors of private or public employment opportunities.
Also, as the board/shareholders/owners of these one of these companies, you wouldn't want to "Reward" behavior at the workplace that disrupts the morale of the broader employee base and lowers productivity through acts of targeted disruption such as walkouts. Lets be honest, if this individual wanted to make such points or force change, she could do so on her own time, or even on company time after building up the skills needed to reach a position of influence and use the regular channels of influence to exert change instead of what is essentially a protest of defiance against a private company that is paying for the time used to disrupt their own business.
Not to say i don't agree with your points about these tech companies essentially abusing their positions of power. . .the anti competitive legal route should be far more effective at reining them in and adding accountability compared to adding more chaos in the form of employee protests to the mix.
Personally, i found the series on HBO to have been poorly researched and even more poorly delivered in execution.
A whole part of dealing with Russians as well as a large part of how their policies are shaped can be understood through culture. The characteristic bent in mannerisms that value "honor", "masculinity", less emphasis on the exact and more on "estimates" while working through problems etc. Most people who've dealt with the Russians will agree, that this series came across as British propaganda, badly inserting their societal structures to communicate the events flowing in another, completely different structure. The main character looked like a poor Austin Powers impersonator playing a Russian.
As an example, the Female Scientist, Ulana . . i have no problem with the producers exercising creative freedom to designate her character as the substitute for the hundreds of other scientists who worked on the project, but in doing so, wildly misrepresented the role of women in Russian society during those times.
The choice of English as a language itself . . fine. What the producers can't seem to grasp is the delivery of Russian is aggressive. You don't make statements in tense situations with the British smooth tongue. That does not serve the understanding of the situations during those times very well.
I could go on about the sheer lack of patriotism displayed by any of the main characters to the point where it felt as though it was forbidden when in reality, anyone who's lived through those times and interacted informally with these people knows the opposite is true, but i repeat myself.
A part of me wonders if the disproportionate weightage of particular scientists/researchers skews the field toward their ideas more than others.
As far as i can tell, the Vatican proposal by Stephen Hawking is a hypothetical, one that has math going for it, but in a case considered by the opponents, going against it. The consensus of the community of scientists backing Hawkings hypotheticals could as easily have backed the opposing view, but there you have it, its considered the accepted view of reality. Why? I can't reasonably explain that to someone less tuned in to the physics community, but there it is.
Reminds me of a conversation over drinks with a colleague of mine who i know to delve in alternate theories talking to me about Birkeland Currents[1] and how "popular science" favored the theories of (coincidentally) another British scientist for the longest time, thus leaving the author of the (later proved) correct theory, shunned for decades by the scientific community.
> "Why should the price of the phone matter to Qualcomm"
Why should the makers of phones use Qualcomm technology? FRAND standards aren't laws, only good faith handshake promises unenforceable in courts.
Can't make the argument that "Without Qualcomm chips, our whole phone business would die" and "Qualcomm doesn't sell important enough technology for us to pay a percentage of our phone retail price"
Vertical integration is the headache of the phone manufacturers. Don't like it? Sell modular phones with a missing modem slot and have customers buy the modems directly.
The Chip industry is a very capital intensive business driven by volumes and i fully expect to maximize my potential earnings were i to spend tens of billions building up an unrivalled technology portfolio which is not the same as a monopolistic market position.
Reading the comments here, it pains me that after all this time, the tech community still doesn't see that they're not like everyone else.
No. The answer simply cannot be 'better performing' tech that does the same thing. People are different. There's no talk of the "experience" that these games or tools give their users that would compel them to stay, considering the escalating war for their attention from everything ranging from modern consoles and the amazing storylines the games there have to those short bursts of attention grabbing content from "Content creators" on IG/YT/Tik-tok.
The hardware specs are just one part of the puzzle and you're going to have an incredibly hard time convincing the average person to spend any time organically just because the hardware "allows" some sort of superior perf.
Can i play my PS4/Xbox library on this? Give me a benchmark to something i love and stop pushing me towards a nerd ideal of what you think i should do with the tech. I wonder how hard it would be to adapt existing open world/ First person games like Assasins creed or GTA V to output here? Maybe hack in an external GPU for those platforms while we're at it so it can handle the load. . . MSFT already has a tie up with Oculus and Sony would be happy to for a few billion (That FB, Oculus' parent has lying around)
Once you show gamers that what they're doing at present pales in comparison to what you're offering here, it's going to be hard to get them to go back to the sub optimal standard. That's not going to happen or is going to be much harder by trying to get them to abandon what they're doing right now in favor of a completely new platform with nothing from what they're used to.
Interesting. You're saying that one mustn't take the writings in a blog seriously, because . . its a blog? Here are a few choice quotes from the blog:
> Which gives me, as your nerd friend who gets asked about this stuff all the time, an opportunity to pre-emptively pass along to you a little bit of purchasing advice.
> because literally the only thing that inkjets had going for them was the fact that they were massively cheaper than lasers. They lose on every other front.
> And then there is the big problem with inkjets, which is that ink for them is just ludicrously expensive.
1. There's no premise of "hey, i might be wrong here, this is what i think", in fact the first quote begins with the premise that, as a "nerd friend who gets asked about this stuff all the time", somehow this writer is an expert. Personally ,this seems as presumptive as the manufacturers "gouging" on peoples novice understanding of printing economics and technical ability, thus charging a premium for the abstraction of the details and upfront subsidy in the form of hardware discounts to later charge for supplies, that the author rallies against in the entire blog.
2. The 2nd and 3rd comments are just plain wrong. Writing them in a blog or anywhere with the conviction that they're right will do nothing to further ones reputation as someone who knows what they're talking about or has done a reasonable job searching the internet or any other source for details that may disgree with ones view before putting it out there.
3. The blogpost is from 2016, but tank printers and the economics that the blog covers have been around for much longer than that (>5 years now)
The issue i take with this whole opinion isn't the fact that it is wrong. Again, debate on ideas is a very healthy exercise and must be encouraged. It's the presentation of an opinion as unquestionable and absolute fact that reduces the whole piece to one that's not in good taste. This writing style is more and more prevalent in tech where authors tend to cling to their POV with absolutes rather than approach an engineering problem/statement with an open mind and present ideas/opinion as what they are . . Ideas and opinions. Not absolute fact that cannot be questioned under any circumstance.
That those forest fires that could have been avoided are "natural" and that i shouldn't care about the negligent pollution of air or the planet since i should just "move away" ?
I'm having a hard time squaring any of this with the outrage you've displayed in your other comments about a well being drilled.