pdonis
Is not a well-defined number. The number you are calculating assumes that the horizon is an ordinary 2-sphere enclosing an ordinary 3-ball [edited, see grandchild post] in Euclidean space, and divides the hole's mass by the calculated volume of that 3-ball. But the spacetime of a black hole doesn't work that way. The "space" inside the hole's horizon is not like any kind of ordinary space that your intuitions will work for.
Also, the interior of the hole is vacuum, so its mass is not something that's distributed throughout any kind of volume; it's just a geometric property of the spacetime.
I did qualify my statement with the caveat that whether people looking in from the outside, who don't have skin in the game, think there's a problem that the people who do have skin in the game can't resolve among themselves, doesn't always match whether there actually is such a problem (a caveat which I could argue that you have hand-waved away). But I am not saying that all cases are like that.
What I am saying is that, even in the cases that aren't like that, the cases where the people who do have skin in the game really can't resolve a problem by working among themselves, that does not mean that reformers coming in from outside can do any better. I think such outside interventions, through human history, have a very poor track record of working. A quick summary of my point about conservatives and reformers would then be that conservatives recognize this unpleasant truth of human history, whereas reformers don't acknowledge it and are way, way too eager to make such interventions, and end up making things even worse.
I never said that about conservatives; indeed, I said the opposite.
"Reformers", yes--but I don't think the label is one I just made up. I think what I said is true of most people that call themselves "reformers".
> Whereas for me the words describe what people are trying to do in practice, regardless of political labels.
Since this is exactly how I was defining the labels--by what the people do, not what political party they claim to belong to or support--I am confused about why you think you are doing something different.
I'm only describing that case (for both reformers and conservatives), yes. Historically, that seems to be the most relevant case, at least if we want to talk in terms of size of human impact.
To put it another way: if the problem (if there is one--see further comments below) can be solved by the people who do have skin in the game working things out among themselves, the labels "reformer" and "conservative" don't even come into play. You just have people who have to find some way of working together, doing it. So the only cases where those labels even arise are the cases where the people who do have skin in the game can't work things out among themselves--or at least that the people looking in from the outside, who don't have skin in the game themselves, think so.
The term "reformer", historically, does have another meaning: people who have some grand idea for how society should be organized, observing that it currently is not organized that way, and treating that as a Problem even if others don't agree that it is. A "conservative" seeing that would just say, look, you can't just impose your own idea of how society should be on everyone else. But historically, "reformers" in such cases have always framed things in terms of there being a Problem that isn't just "society isn't the way I think it should be"--the workers are oppressed, or the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, or whatever, and using that as an excuse to implement their ideas for the ideal society. Which has never worked out well.
No, the conservative says, even if there are problems, that doesn't mean everything is a problem, nor does it mean that you, looking in from the outside, can dictate a solution.
> the reformer says “we must change this now”.
No matter how much has to be burned down to do it. This mentality killed well north of 100 million people in the 20th century.
Conservatism is humility. Progressivism is hubris.
Unless you just, you know, don't watch. Which is what I do. I ask myself, is it even worth all this hassle to watch this stuff? Is it that good? And for me, the answer is, no, it isn't. I can find better things to do with my time. So I do.
Unless the customers are the shareholders, as in a co-op. The article's data seems to show that co-ops provide the cheapest electricity, which makes sense because the owners are the same people as the users, so the incentives are aligned.
Only in a very minimal sense. A management that is only empowered to maintain common areas of a community can't "govern" the community members except in the very narrow sense of enforcing whatever rules the community wants to have for the use of common areas. Which is just an aspect of the fact that the community as a whole owns the common areas and the owner makes the rules.
Such a management can't mess with community members about how often they cut their lawns, or what color they paint their house, etc. But that sort of micromanagement is what "governance" by HOAs ends up being when it goes beyond basic management of common areas.
No, he wouldn't, because he used "self-governance" to mean the thing that contradicts what it says on its face.
> It's not an oxymoron - it just comes with caveats.
The kind of "democratic" governance we actually have certainly comes with caveats, yes--caveats that have basically never been really dealt with. Jefferson's ideal of a "well-informed people" has never been achieved.
Jefferson did claim to believe that the US Federal government should be as minimal as possible--until he became President and found that it's actually kind of nice to be able to use that power to do things you feel like doing, whether they actually meet that minimal government ideal or not.
But in any case, none of that justifies describing the governance we actually have as "self-governance".
Roads and sewer are two things I've never seen an HOA have jurisdiction over; in every HOA community I've lived in, the municipality still owned the roads and the water and sewer infrastructure. The HOA was only responsible for things like mowing the grass in common areas and maintaining play equipment there.
No, it isn't. You can also get in that situation by having the HOA cite you for a violation of its rules and regulations and you not fixing the violation.
An HOA acting in good faith will not do this unless it's actually necessary. But an HOA run by busybodies can cite you for things that aren't actually violations (and often what is or is not a violation can be subjective, because the language in the rules and regulations is often vague or ambiguous), but which you still have to take the time and energy to respond to--or else they can say you didn't fix the violation and put a lien on your house.
And if you do respond, now you're embroiled in an argument about whether what they cited you for actually is a violation or isn't, and you're arguing with bad faith actors who are not going to be reasonable. And who might put a lien on your house anyway--even though they're actually not supposed to do that if you're following the process established by the HOA (and often by state law) for disputes--and now you're faced with having to hire a lawyer and convince a judge that the lien should be dismissed.
This sounds good, but I don't think it generally works. The problem is that the petty minded people are also the ones who don't have anything else to do with their time, so they can expend all their effort on being petty. Whereas the normal people have other things to do with their lives, and simply don't have the time to deal with all the pettiness, and if they end up on the board, they now don't have a choice: their lives are basically hostage to the petty people who keep taking up their time with bogus issues that can't just be ignored because the structure of the HOA requires some kind of response.
The one advantage of higher levels of government over HOAs is that they are generally impersonal. The faceless bureacrats that are processing your forms generally don't have any personal animus against you. They don't have to live next door to you and they don't have to care what your personal oddities are. They're just executing a bureaucratic process. Whereas with an HOA, every little petty personal grievance gets magnified, and so-called "governance" turns into endless feuding.
Yes, and then you find out just how petty petty politics can be.
The inconvenient truth, at least for HOA advocates, is that a community of 20-30 people, or even a hundred or so, does not need to be governed at the level of the community. Most people are reasonable and will respond to reasonable requests from neighbors if there is an issue, without having to drag in a higher authority at all. Those who are not reasonable, are not going to be magically made reasonable by having an HOA--indeed, as you admit, they're precisely the ones who are going to end up running the HOA. On balance, you're better off not having "governance" at all until you get to a larger population, like a town or a city.
My own personal experience from my wife having owned one condo and she and I having owned four houses is not very encouraging for your claim either. Of the four HOAs involved, the two that were run entirely by management companies (i.e., by people with no personal connection to the neighborhood, with little or no activity from the community members on the Board that we could see) were fine, they kept the common areas maintained and basically did nothing else that affected us. The condo association, while it had a management company, also had a Board filled with community members who had nothing better to do than harass everyone else, which they did with an energy that would have been amazing if it had been directed towards something productive. The other HOA had no management company, just the Board of community members, and was very intrusive, and from what we learned from neighbors, had been a mess for the entire history of the community.
So we now live in a neighborhood with no HOA, we only have to deal with the municipality. We like it.
If you're forking the project, sure. But I don't think that's what Gentoo is doing.
If you're trying to build what the project owner intended for you to build, I don't see how you can just ignore what the project owner specified. Nor do I see how that is allowed by the Python specs. That's why I asked you for a reference if you think it is in fact allowed by the Python specs.
If your position is that the Python specs don't allow you to just ignore pyproject.toml, but a distro can just ignore what's in the Python specs, I don't agree with the latter either, but it's a different position, and I'm not sure which one you're taking.
The point is that that's not your call to make. It's the project owner's call. That's what the build backend specification in pyproject.toml is for. If you're going to just ignore that, what's the point of having it at all?
> in the sdist (using information from pyproject.toml plus the developer's source tree to produce PKG-INFO)
Which is the only place that's relevant for this discussion, since we're talking about Gentoo, which builds everything from source.
> The latter cases mean that the developer is asserting that code needs to run on the end user's machine in order to get correct metadata. This is… usually questionable at best, and IMO impolite without a damned good reason.
I agree with all this, but as above, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
The build process is more than just the Python code. There is also project metadata, which might be dynamically generated by the build backend. Indeed that's one of the main features offered by the different build backends, simplifying the project owner's life by removing the need to write a lot of boilerplate metadata that the tool can automatically discover on its own.
This comes as a complete surprise to me. I thought the whole point of specifying the build backend in pyproject.toml was so the project owner can choose which build backend their project gets built with, and have that choice automatically enforced by tools.
Are you saying this kind of thing is allowed by the Python spec? If so, where? Can you give a specific document?
> The author even highlights
What he means is that the project owner doesn't have to, for example, use uv-build as their build backend in pyproject.toml just because they are using uv as their overall project management tool. I do not think he means that he, as a distro packager, is free to just ignore what's in pyproject.toml.
That is so utterly different from what we humans are used to that we can't even comprehend it, and we anthropomorphize LLMs because we can't make any sense of them otherwise. We can't comprehend that these things that emit text that looks like human text don't have all of the other things that lie underneath our words when we humans talk.
Nothing in the Python spec guarantees that the resulting build artifact will be identical if the build system dependencies update but nothing else in the project does. So what's a "build everything from source" distro to do? If it's possible that updating the build dependency will change the build artifact, doesn't it have to rebuild?