What I struggle to reconcile in my own life is the difference between this logic, and the logic of a businessman who believes he cannot compete without polluting.
Do we accept "well, my business is unlikely to success, and so my family will starve" as a reason for shitting in the world the rest of us live in?
Or do we say, "there are alternatives, and yes, while your business may fail, we'll all be better off"?
We are in agreement. My comment was to the effect of "the author took literary license, most (native speakers) probably knew that, don't beat a dead horse."
In America, you are 100% allowed to do these things to your own house because you have to live with the consequences.
The trades are here to protect other people from me asserting my skill in electrician-ining, when I have no such skill but represent to others that I do.
Who is the ISIS of plumbing? I'm confused by that assertion.
OK, I would encourage you to reread the conversation. The HN consensus is clearly different than how you perceive it.
You may be absolutely correct. The HN Hivemind is frequently wrong.
But please use this as an opportunity for introspection, wherein you centralize the idea that the community of peers with whom you choose to associate, think you are an ass.
You are speaking of basically an IP-based version of the spamhaus blacklist. For general http or TCP protocol.
I, for one, would be fine with a general internet citizen losing access if they have a compromised device. I suspect this is how we will go -- your home security cam was used in an attack, now every single website you visit for XXXXXXXX days gives you a CAPTCHA.
I maintain the crucial element is informing people why they have that hassle. Add extra friction, but not inhibit what they can do, because they are unable and unwilling to secure their devices.
Yes, this affects the internet-uneducated disproportionately. Yes, I think it is the responsibility of anyone with a broadband connection to understand the responsibilities that come with it.
No, I do not expect grandma to learn this. I expect her to deal with a crippled internet because they are not able to fix their pollution.
Do you perceive that your sarcasm was effective? Did it convey your point clearly and concisely, so that you can share your perspective and point of view?
Or did it do more harm to what is otherwise a legitimate viewpoint and possibly deserving of discussion?
I'd be fine paying for it to cover the cost of SMS. Like parent, I'm not willing to use facebook to get access, even for free.
One option would be to re-enable the SMS option for people who deposit money to cover the SMS fees. Mark them up 100% (so 2c per SMS or something) and you'll have a built-in profit margin.
It seems like attendant readers understands what the author was doing. They didn't say the definition explicitly, which would violate pep20 (explicit is better than implicit), but, considering this is an article in Outside Online magazine... I think we can accept this violation.
I can understand that you might think other people would be misled by the rhetorical structure... but I encourage you to not get upset at imagined misunderstandings on behalf of others. (Not that it's wrong, it's just makes your life a little less happy)
i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.
In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.
(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)