Why? For me at this point YOLO means a family of detectors that in a single pass propose a bounding box per pixel and filters them with some clustering algorithm. When I see YOLOfoo I know what kind of architecture to expect. A more descriptive name like YOLO-tricks instead of YOLOvX would be nice though.
I find your take on alternative forms of agriculture a little too optimistic. Even with rotation and biodiversity famines and plagues were common before the use of pesticides. Our technology and knowledge are better now but even with that, I doubt that we could sustain the current population. Not in a way as predictable as now for sure. And for the figure of 75% it is not that simple. A considerable part of the crops consumed by meat production are conformed by not edible material that would have to be produced anyway. Material that ruminants can magically transform into food.
But for the sake of the argument let's say you are right. I'm not as interested in the pesticides example as in knowing how much are you willing to sacrifice in order to follow that logic. Let me rephrase my question then.
- Having more than 2 kids per couple is unnecessary (even less than that for some time).
- Each extra human consumes resources necessarily damaging the animals and the earth.
Would you pass a law banning having children whenever the birth rate surpasses 2?
Hi, minarchist here. You are almost right in the distinction between right and left anarchism being about private property. But it's a little more profound. The main difference radicates in the conception of legitimate power. For a right anarchist, power is illegitimate only when it's carried out through violence. Meanwhile, for a left anarchist almost any power hierarchy is illegitimate in itself. To the extent that private property could give rise to power hierarchies, a left anarchist will reject it. But it's only a particular case derived from the core belief.
> "anarcho-capitalist" is inherently paradoxical
Well, anarcho-capitalists believe that there are ways to provide property rights outside the state. As a minarchist, I'm skeptical about it, but if you believe it there's no paradox.
On the other hand, I do find deeply paradoxical the left anarchist stance on rejecting capitalism but also (AFAIK) reject any means to stop its emergence in society.
> There is also another conversation to be had about minarchist/libertarian ideas basically wanting to remove all the good bits of the state [...] but keeping the bad parts
As a minarchist, I strive for reducing the weight of the state as much as humanly possible. Justice, defense, and a minimal social security net are the only services I can't think how to provide without the state. If you think these are the bad parts I'd love to hear a viable alternative, maybe you can make me fully anarcho-capitalist ;).
> vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage
I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices.
> usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure
That's the problem. There are empty houses but too old or in places where people don't want to live. So to low the prices more houses need to be built there where people want to stay.
Another solution would be improve the communication channels between cities and rural areas.
I like to think of it as the right to freedom of speech and the "spirit" of free speech.
The definition of the first is simple. You have the right of not been coerced to (not) say what you do (not) want to say. Note that this includes the possibility of being coerced not only by the government but by any other institution/individual. It also grants the right of private entities to arbitrarily decide their platform rules.
The spirit of free speech is more vaporous, but it's the idea that powers the right. It's the notion that every perspective deserves to be listened and that the society will be better as a consequence. It's one of the main values of western culture.
One can defend the right but not the spirit, the spirit but not the right, both or none of them.
You are actually using two arguments that aren't really that related. What I think you're saying (tell me if I'm wrong) is something like:
LN doesn't fit BTC core values and BTC without LN doesn't work => BTC doesn't work
But that's a non sequitur, even if it's true that LN doesn't fit BTC values (which is debatible) and BTC can't stand on its own (which is also not clear) that doesn't imply that BTC doesn't work. Mainly because there are many people out there that see BTC only as a tool that fills their needs better than the alternatives, and can't care less about the inner philosophy. For those people BTC+LN works perfectly. You could say "Ok BTC can work but not without ditching it's values". But then you should provide some arguments about why can't exist a L2 solution that conserves those values.
In that case to do a fair comparison you shouldn't count bank transfers as a part of the dollar system either. The logical conclusion then is that the dollar is a terrible currency that forces you to travel thousands of kilometers just to do a payment.
It's curious how politics and activists tend to approach definitions backward. Anyone who aims to be rigorous (as politology and sociology should be) knows that you first must define clearly a term and then reason about it. Instead, we usually see attempts to redefine well-established terms, not by adding an additional meaning, but by replacing the original one. In a purely rational reasoning system, this change would be irrelevant because the important thing is the meaning, not the significant. But we humans are fallible beings, and we tend to transfer the perceptions and logical conclusions attached to the meaning to the significant itself. This way, when a redefinition is done in a society, the term will drag for a while the concepts related to the old meaning. This is a powerful manipulation weapon and I think it's the reason why it's so prevalent in those fields.
This is not saying that you shouldn't redefine anything. As you said in our daily lives there are a lot of terms that have lossy definitions that don't match perfectly with our mental models. But you should be cautious with the real intent of the redefinition, especially if it comes top-down.
I wonder why in HN you usually find comments of excepcional quality except when it comes to crypto. A NFT doesn't enforce property, humans do. A NFT it's only a token that can have an arbitrary meaning, but with the warranty that all transactions done with that token are legitimate. So no, you can't steal a digital asset merely being the first to mint its NFT, because if no one recognizes your property no one is going to buy it from you.
I actually see more anti-crypto than pro-crypto "spam" nowadays (specially on HN) and I'm not wasting my time building overelaborated strawmen. Live and let live.
You have Coinbase, Kucoin, Gateio, Crypto.com, Kraken, Bitfinex, Uniswap, Sushiswap, Pancakeswap, ...
Competition is also a form of decentralization.