CRConrad
That's how we can be sure it's worth keeeping.
It might seem so, if one hasn't read "Careless People: A Story of Where I Used to Work", by Sarah Wynn-Williams.
But anyway... So, now that we're all on the same page about how circumstances can change from one point in time to another — do you feel up to admitting that your argument about "They did it one way then and another now!" is bogus, and retracting it?
___
[Edited: Changed erroneous "one" to "on".]
[Sigh, edited again: Changed erroneous "form" to "from".]
> A key that is used to decrypt copyrighted material being /itself/ copyrighted means it cant be distributed which is what we see.
But nobody (at least in this sub-thread) has shown that the keys are copyrighted. All we know is that they apperently "can't" be distributed. You are proffering one explanation as to why, but you haven't supported it.
"Key or certificate could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material" is presumably why distributing the keys is banned by the DMCA[1]; "key or certificate is copyrighted" is apparently not true, because they can't be[2]. Those are, or are at least purported to be, statements of fact, so asking for examples is irrelevant; kind of like "So you claim two plus two equals four? But you haven't provided an example!".
The immediate consequence, which was presumably what the previous poster was trying to show (and trusted that people would understand the obvious implication), is that distributing these keys may well be a violation of the DMCA, but not of copyright per se. So even if one is all for copyright, but does not support the DMCA as a means to protect it — which, AFAICR from online discussions back when the DMCA was first legislated and implemented, is potentially quite a lot of people — one would be ethically justified to distribute the keys. Unless you can show that they actually are copyrighted.
AFAICS you haven't. So the statement that stands alone and unsupported seems to me to be yours.
___
Edited: Got the attributions wrong, hopefully correct now.
[1]: As per user "pseudalopex", in the GP comment.
[2]: As per user "wmf", a bit upthreads. Because they're just mathematical artifacts and contain no artistic / intellectual human input, AIUI. (Addition on edit: Slå upp "verkshöjd".)
Not to understand this obvious intent, or not to see how the same could apply to the Brazilian election is a sign of either being confused yourself, or... Something worse.
Really, honestly: That post of yours from a couple of years ago that someone linked to in this thread — you should take that advice.
1) The same consequences are probably a lot less "next to no" on Elias's scale.
2) As Uncle Joe is said to have said, "enough quantity becomes a quality of its own". Google-scale chopping down trees is not just a little bigger, it's so much bigger that it becomes a fundamentally different thing than Elias-scale wrong composting.
So yes, anything short of shutting down any plans for new Google data centers in Finland[1] is Google getting favourable treatment; that claim is not incorrect.
___
[1]: And preferably shutting down any existing ones, too. Just so they, and others like them, maybe will learn.
Why would that in itself make it a "non-story"?
Sure don't look like any "administrative error".
If the latter: Yes, that is actually stupid, but the stupidity lies not in the term limits for politicians, but in the idea that public servants are employed on the grounds of party affiliation.[1]
But replacing large swathes of competent higher officials every time you change government... The only country I know of for sure that does that is the USA. Are you saying that's the way it works in Brazil, too?
___
[1]: Sure, to some extent it exists everywhere, but that's usually only a few sincure posts for old politicians removed from any actual influence by being "promoted diagonally left-upwards". (See, for example, the post of "landshövding" in Sweden.)
(See also: "World League", etc, etc ad nauseam.)
If you're obviously invited only as a "seat filler" (and why else would the meeting be boring?), I see nothing wrong with being passive.
And no, him being gone in two years isn't all that much comfort. The problem is not just him, but the American people that elected him: The first time one could think it was a temporary aberration — 2016 was weird, what Brexit and all; maybe there was something in the water? Solar flares...? — but then they (you?) went and did it again in '24. It's not temporary any more.
But since that's your level of accuracy on Sweden, it's hard to see any reason to trust you on Austria either.
Huh? You don't drive a map; you use it to guide your driving. You drive a car, and read a map to do it.
Might have worked better if the two key words -- "drive" and "map", in this case -- had nothing at all to do with each other, but as is, they kind of clash with each other.
Oh well, now that I'd started anyway, I guess I'll read a little further.
Or, IOW, "productivity" is a per-capita measure, so the total number of people doesn't factor in. (Or perhaps rather, gets factored out?) Anyway: People becoming "more productive" means each one producing more per hour — or per 40 hours — than before, so it's weird that they still need to work just as much as before, only to maintain the standard of living they had before.
(Running faster and faster, just to stay where they are... Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.)
There's more to life than one's material standard of living. I think people were mostly talking about the other bits.
Sure sounds like it.
They're wrong. Their little corner might not be, but the world as a whole is.
> and in fact for most people on the planet, life gets better every year.
Sure, if you're a subsistence farmer, five of whose nine kids would have died of starvation a few decades ago. Now it's only one out of six. And yes, that is even in part thanks to the agricultural apps on your smartphone.
But for the larger part of the world's population, who aren't subsistence farmers — they're beyond all that, and into the downside (and that's where the subsistence farmers are headed too, once they are no longer such): Materially safe and well-fed, but prisoners in a bunch of walled panopticon gardens.
> You can control your reality
What one can control is a little Potemkin village, which one will always know is not actually reality. Your avid proselytizing for that as a "solution" is you working, intentionally or (hopefully) unintentionally, on behalf of the techbroligarks who are busily acquiring the real world as their personal fiefdoms.
If you are (hopefully not!) doing this intentionally, one can only wonder: Are you a techbroligark? (If so, who are you — Zuck, Musk, Thiel...?) If not: Why on Earth would you want to lull people — why would you be propagandizing for people lulling themselves — into the bliss of ignorance; why would you want them to ignore the world actually going to shit by hiding in some little artificial enclave where they can pretend that it isn't?
And if you aren't doing it intentionally, you need to wake up to the fact that it is what you're doing... And stop doing it.
All a matter of having an open and curious mind, I suppose.
I think this is the main point and benefit of the whole thing. It can be difficult and/or expensive to set up a limited liabilty company in many countries; as an e-Stonian, it's apparently cheap and simple.
Any possible tax benefits are just a bonus.
Those can, AIUI, in many countries be hard, bureaucratic, or expensive to set up. The great advantage of Estonian "electronic residency" (again, only AIUI) is that it enables you to easily and cheaply set up an Estonian "electronic stock company", which might not be so easy and cheap where you live.
It's not just about "charging"; it's about shielding.
___