Ajedi32

13 ms·

301.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond tha
302.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal. Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get o
303.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release. Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they'r
304.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accurate. The article says: > We're partnering with TotalE
305.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
True, but I don't think you need to compromise to do age verification; there are plenty of ways to achieve the stated goal without any privacy impact, like the one I just suggested. Once people start arguing those measures aren't
306.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
I guess my point is that if any substantial portion of the people in favor of age verification are actually acting in good faith, then responding to their efforts to protect children with "NEVER! I WILL OPPOSE YOU TO MY LAST BREATH!&qu
307.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Yeah this article is very lacking in detail. If they A-B tested it though (which seems like an extremely basic thing to try before making a decision like this) I think that would satisfy your objection.
308.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Personally I think this is untrue, and that acting like it's true is a defeatist attitude that sabotages any efforts to build alternative systems that accomplish the goal of age verification without user verification. Right now my pe
309.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
IMO you could have some mechanism by which websites could have content certified as child-safe if they agree to adhere to certain standards. (And thereby make them accessible to child-safe devices, which would otherwise default to blocking
310.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Sort of, except OP also says: > This doesn't mean every device needs to implement child locks Which is the exact opposite of what the California law says, going so far as to mandate that open source embedded operating systems ask us
311.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Yes, I prefer that approach as well because it allows the person who authored the change to do all the work of deciding how to resolve conflicts up front (and allows reviewers to review that conflict resolution) instead of forcing whoever e
312.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
This isn't a physical product. A better analogy would be a phone call, initiated by someone in the UK to a foreign country.
313.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
That's how the user interface works. What is it doing at the protocol level? What stops someone from building a service that mints anonymous verification codes on a massive scale and distributes them to anyone who asks? Maybe with the
314.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Well, money makes it a lot easier to get a message out to voters, and in a democracy voters are the ones ultimately in charge. So in a democratic society where free speech exists there's only so much you can do to prevent that.
315.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
That's fair. Insofar as the purpose of the stock market is to allocate capital to companies the market predicts are most likely to succeed, you could argue that trading stocks based on insider information should be legal (though not in
316.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
Betting markets are actually pretty good at predicting the outcomes of sports games. But you're correct that that's not the point of those markets; accurately predicting the outcome of a sports game has no real-world value, people
317.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
It's in the name: Prediction market. The point is to predict an outcome, insiders will naturally be better at that than non-insiders. Though I think where things start to get a bit more insidious is when the "insiders" have
318.
by Ajedi32 7mo ago
I think GP is saying it's not the prediction market that's bad, but human nature itself. The prediction market just makes it more visible.
319.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Yeah maybe if you phrased it as "Which card(s) must you turn over in order to ensure that all odd-numbered cards are blue?" you'd get a better response?
320.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
It also doesn't explain why people don't think it necessary to check the 3 to make sure it's not blue (which it would be if "if" meant "if and only if").
321.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Maybe the social version just creates a context where "if x then y" obviously does not include "if not x then not y". Everyone knows people over the drinking age can drink both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, so you
322.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Maybe for some it's a lot more extreme than for others, but even if it's not so dramatic as to be categorized as a mental illness wouldn't you want to know if, say, there were a direct correlation between whether you went for
323.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Right, but you don't necessarily need to spend hundreds of hours to capture most of this; the data is already out there. If there were a tool that could collect it all in one place and give you insights with minimal effort that would b
324.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
The real world is indeed more complicated, but not in a way which renders the basic rules of economics untrue. What you're doing is the economic equivalent of pointing at an airplane and saying "Look at that! And you really still
325.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Personally I have no issue with people mutually agreeing to any terms (within reason) as long as it's an actual agreement and not just some boilerplate legalese that nobody really expects you to even read, let alone carefully study a
326.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Given the scope and complexity of our legal system that's actually a very high bar to clear for anyone, and especially for the president who often gets involved in particularly complex legal situations where even a panel of experienced
327.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
Correct, if you invest billions then you are taking a risk which could either pay off or not depending on whether you're right about that investment being an efficient use of society's resources. Existing fabs are currently reapin
328.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
> “market and incentives always lead to the greater good” I never said anything of the sort, I'm just explaining basic economic facts. Feel free to pretend they aren't true if you wish, but if you do then for all our sakes plea
329.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
> No that is not what democratize means, how asinine. You're wrong, and are getting upset with GP over your own lack of vocabulary. > democratize (verb) > [...] > 2. [+ object] formal : to make (something) available to al
330.
by Ajedi32 8mo ago
I wasn't necessarily making an objection, just an observation. But I suspect that warrantless government surveillance of the movements of millions of private citizens who have not been accused of a crime might be considered inherently

More ›