xkde

Last I checked, Minnesota had the largest population in the lower 48. I personally see them all the time.

I think people have to get more serious about separating science as a procedure from scientism (that is, philosophical issues that are often discussed in tandem). When one uses the phrase, “science denier”, it often means, “you don’t agree with my philosophy/metaphysics/economic policy” rather than “you deny these particular facts”, which causes people to be rightly concerned. I’m not optimistic that this is going to change anytime soon, but this, I think, accounts for many of the issues in current discourse.

It’s been done: https://youtu.be/2b-CMtKhTl0

Though I suppose we’re not above remakes.

> They stalk you, collect data and build a profile

Again, not generally a problem when using paid services.

Dumping chemicals in shared rivers/air vs placing ads in a privately owned space that users have the option of visiting. Not comparable.

The fact that more people use Gmail than Protonmail / others is a testament to their willingness to trade their eyeballs on ads for a service they don't have to spend their monetary resources on.

It's also worth asking - what makes you so confident about an absence of malfeasance from the largest, unbreakable corporate entity (ie. the government)?

Leaded gasoline and the Internet are hardly comparable. But go ahead and make straw man arguments.

Conversely, we could try not fiddling with it: https://youtu.be/6txA3pI0xJI

And playing minesweeper.

...we’re talking about public libraries.

You would hope not, but given the number of stories these days that are just, “hey look at this Tweet!”, I don’t think we can expect that much.

https://youtu.be/mpHiDsnqOSA

We’re going to see a lot of those plot elements in the near future.

Somebody has no sense of humor...

> I’m surprised that free market enthusiasts don’t see zoning laws as a limitation of freedom

We do.

It isn’t funny when your opinions get categorized as hate speech and it’s your ox getting gored.

@subhobroto Today is when you learn that facts and reality are not popular on HN.

It’s real, but it doesn’t always take the form of dollars (probably the most popular misconception). Warren Buffet is a billionaire, but most of that wealth is locked up in businesses that are producing products. If he really wanted all of that cash, he’d have to find a buyer or liquidate those businesses (probably at a loss).

True, but it’s perfectly reasonable for Apple to come to the conclusion that, “we just don’t want to deal with the risk” and move on. If they’re not using either GPLed or proprietary stuff, the problem goes away.

Except the adjective in this case is sufficient as a noun on its own. Unless you want to bring capitalism in for ulterior motives.

I’m having a hard time trying to decide if people are trying to dirty capitalism with “surveillance” or surveillance with capitalism. Seems like the latter has become a dirty word over night for no apparent reason.

Not arguing about the US being about to learn this the hard way. But when we get to that point, neither a pension nor a 401k will be able to save anyone.

Because pensions aren’t portable. They lock you into a particular organization. 401k, stocks, savings accounts, etc, do not. Pensions (in the private sector, public ones are another ball of wax entirely) do not protect you against inflation. You have no control over what they’re invested in (which in some cases, is the pension manager’s retirement). There are much better options available.

4. Personal saving / investing. 5. Lean on family (super common, even in several non-American societies today)

It’s disingenuous to assert that the alternative to no pension is blood in the streets.

As a general rule, the returns are better in 401k, yes. This assumes that it’s invested in something with good growth potential (U.S. stock index funds, etc) and not money market funds or something highly speculative, of course.

The same thing as the thousands of years prior to pensions?

I haven’t seen this kind of activism since the 20th Century Motor Corporation.

Telling how this very reasonable, “maybe things aren’t completely black and white” comment got downvoted.

> Except the 10th guy has more stuff than the other 9 combined.

By that logic, you should be made to give everything you have to the people of Congo. Since when is morality determined by the size of one’s wallet?

And the only reason for that is you haven’t taken enough of my money?

What would you call 9 people in a group of ten voting to take away the tenth guy’s stuff because they wanted to? I call it what it is - stealing. Greed. Envy. Interestingly, it will probably lead to more equality; it just won’t be what you’re expecting and I don’t think you’ll like the result. At this point though, the people probably deserve to get what they want and get it good and hard.

No, the alternative is adaptation.

So, in order: 1. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul 2. Good idea. Make it happen. 3. Also stealing, but if it were to replace the system we have now (which won’t happen) it would at least be more efficient.