stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Also, “well being of people” < “military stuff”

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Strong/weak types and static/dynamic typing are orthogonal things.

Strong type system limits things like 1+”1”.

Static type system requires type declarations (“int i”).

Python always had strong dynamic types.

stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Its quite simple to filter out Hesbolah from those injured. If it is fighting age male, then he is Hesbloah.

stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Yup. That is _part_ of human nature.

That’s why power corrupts.

stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

> Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths

Seems a reasonable and useful way to define it.

> any definition is going to be fuzzy.

Definitely! (That is why I preemptively added my attempt at the definition, to avoid a discussion past each other)

stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”.

> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium

I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism

> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature

Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).

Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.

stoperaticless

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Parallel with front door was appropriate answer:

1. This is default expectation (to have privacy, to have doors)

2. If you go abstract, it’s not too useful (its good to have of control of information sharing/ it’s good having control who access your house)

3. It seems impractical to go into details, due to very many different scenarios, details, expectations. Take a set of different “motivations” (incompetence+personal gain+for terror+for ideology push), multiply it by types of actors (phone manufacturer, government, enemy state, criminals), mix in the possibility that law and approach can be changed/ expanded, while keeping in mind that motivations and actors will change year to year. (One thing when such tool is available for consertive gov., other thing when such tool is available for extreeme right/left gov.)

Parallels do diverge eventually, with door if somebody breaks it you most probably can see it immediately. While negative effects of privacy breach can take years to surface.

comments