> No privacy is valued other than their own, and they will always use "think of the children" as an excuse.
Until they lose an election using "think of the children", they'll always continue to use it. In terms of political weaponry, it's currently unstoppable.
> 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how.
Assume the opposite direction. If you don't bring the data, then you're not doing your part to convince others on your position. Assumption of "default data" is a significant contributor in the breakdown of communications.
> 2) does that answer satisfy you?
No, in fact it leaves open more questions than before. From the article provided (https://archive.is/fZ9CN):
>> The $48 million annual budget for the observation network was small compared with the value of the data it collected for understanding the oceans and the climate, Dr. McLean said.
- Why didn't aligned charities step in to plug the gap? Billions flow through charities each year, and yet none have stepped in? One or 2 stepping in and still not being able to plug the gap, I can accept. None at all?
- If the data is that important, then there should be multiple efforts in collecting it, not just one. Why did everything get lumped into a single basket?
> ... “removal of all in-water infrastructure” belonging to the Ocean Observatories Initiative at sites along the coasts of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and North Carolina, and in the waters between Greenland and Iceland.
...Why is Europe reliant on the US for monitoring oceans between Greenland & Iceland, i.e within European territory & therefore European monitoring? Shouldn't they have their own infra to work from?
> And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless.
The math is simple: The total cost for building on Earth is X, the total cost for building in space is Y.
If X > Y, building in space makes fiscal sense.
To say that it never happens, MagicMoonlight, requires X to always be less than Y, which cannot hold true forever. Eventually, X will grow to be more than Y, simply due to (rightfully placed) increased regulations for building on Earth.
> It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon.
Arguably, that should be the original goal: Build the DC on the moon.
> the author lost me when he implied socialism is synonymous with authoritarianism.
To enforce the socialist cause at the 100+M level, a stricter level of enforcement is required in order to forbade a breakout of inter-party bartering & thus the subversion of the socialist cause.
Such bartering is allowed under capitalism as it is considered arbitrage for at least one of the parties involved, but under mainstream understandings of socialism, such value surplus is disallowed to be kept to the private parties involved as it should be given out to the benefit of the wider population.
Caveat: There are variations of socialism that still allow for private bartering & exchanges, but they're typically disallowed at larger scales as they allow for the subversion of the socialist cause through the accumulation of private means of production, even if the "private" means "my town, not yours"
> I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial.
An orbital DC makes fiscal sense when the cost to launch one to space is lower than the cost to build one on Earth.
Key point: The cost of building on Earth will inevitably trend upwards as more restrictions & costs are (~80% rightfully) placed onto Earth-bound datacenters.
> The earlier F2I scheme instead had a contest where the party that is the most ambitious in fabricating lab notebooks to backdate their invention gets the patent.
The implementation of F2I is then the issue. It should be the first to fulfill all of the following requirements:
(1) physically show at least 2 patent clerks the invention,
(2) that the invention works & operates as outlined, with the clerks being the ones to operate the machine, and
(3) a detailed step-by-step guide to the clerk about how the machine works
The date that the patent is awarded should be the date where the last of the 3 actions occurred.
> If someone can’t write their own Agent.md for a project how are they going to validate the auto-completed text?
> This strikes me as the ideal LLM first contribution/PR, a file explaining the projects standards and testing and structure.
Why should the project maintainers write such a file, when the info already exists within the README? It is duplicated work at best, and a definitive sign of the incapabilities of the agent to properly parse the project's contribution guidelines.
Logistically & brand-wise, they're messy to deal with, but they result in a "filter" of sorts that the original project can pick & choose to upstream back into their code.
> Should the barrier of entry be someone who knows how to code? or should the barrier of entry be someone who is motivated to help with open-source software.
The motivation to help the OSS project should also come with the obligation to learn how the software operates, at least on a conceptual level. The desire to help does not grant people the pass to sledgehammer their way into adding in a feature.
> Is it that if you write enough buggy code you get banned as a contributor?
If this is a consistent issue, your contribution would (ideally) be continuously put into a backlog until someone else with no connection to you verifies that it's as bug-free as it appears to be. (Excluding non-obvious security & performance issues)
> Is it that you're not allowed to say Claude ate my homework?
Yes. As the contributor, you should be the first one to look over the code, not someone else.
Not immediately being a copyright bootlicker.
The fact that you went straight to "BuT pIrAtEs" already shows who you actually care: Corpos, not people.