gwright

70 ms·

751.
by gwright 7y ago
Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty&
752.
by gwright 7y ago
I'm not sure I agree with what you are asserting. There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaul
753.
by gwright 7y ago
> I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated. > I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." This is a pretty standard way of staking out a position on this topic but I think it is q
754.
by gwright 7y ago
I'll bet there are quite a few people on HN that have never dialed 411 or 1-<area-code>-555-1212.
755.
by gwright 7y ago
Monad
756.
by gwright 7y ago
How is the Internet (effectively) free? * desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, etc aren't free * wireless data plans aren't free * wired Internet connections aren't free * streaming services aren't free
757.
by gwright 7y ago
A reasonable baseline, but it is also a pretty low bar. It basically excludes intentionally fraudulent communications but not much else. A much more difficult problem is to discern who's beliefs are closest to the ground truth. One app
758.
by gwright 7y ago
> In private? Absolutely. That doesn't sound like "absolutely free". Maybe I'm missing he sarcasm.
759.
by gwright 7y ago
Step one, avoid zero-sum thinking.
760.
by gwright 7y ago
> In a hard sense ... What other sense is there? Or more specifically, what makes proprietary software innately unethical? It just seems like you have to radically distort the meaning of "proprietary" or "ethical" to
761.
by gwright 7y ago
While I think there should be a legal recourse for these sorts of things, everyone's personal calculus on when to fight and when to move on is going to be different. Just because there is a legal recourse doesn't mean that everyon
762.
by gwright 7y ago
> proprietary software to be unethical My sense is only a very small percentage (way less than 1%) of software developers think that proprietary software by definition is unethical. Am I wrong to think this?
763.
by gwright 7y ago
That just sounds like normal consequences. I don't think it is reasonable to think that the government is going to protect you from the private-actor consequences of your "political views, worldview, and way of life". To do s
764.
by gwright 7y ago
What do you mean by "punish minority views"? An important component of the classical notion of "state" power is that the government has a monopoly on the use of force. When coupled with the limits to the power of the maj
765.
by gwright 7y ago
What definition of "capitalism" are you using? Patagonia certainly seems to exist in a world of private ownership, private investment decisions, and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
766.
by gwright 7y ago
"highly disposable"? I think if you consider the average useable lifetime of an Apple product they aren't as expensive as they may seem. Of course there are people who want a new model phone every year but that is their choi
767.
by gwright 7y ago
I have no idea how the Boeing board works, but most boards aren't involved in the day-to-day operations of the corporation and would be considered separate from the "leadership team".
768.
by gwright 7y ago
Right, but that doesn't stop the government. Student loans are not approved based on any risk/reward mechanism that I'm aware of (currently).
769.
by gwright 7y ago
The loan programs don't adjust the interest rates for the risk/reward involved. As a taxpayer I don't want to fund someone for 4 years in college and then have them default or be be unqualified for a job that would make them
770.
by gwright 7y ago
Who knows? Like I said that is a difficult decision and I'd rather those decisions be made by individuals. They can decide if taking out a loan to get an English degree is worthwhile. And if they can't find someone to loan them
771.
by gwright 7y ago
Yep. That is called "the market". And I think the government shouldn't get in the way and "favor" anything. Let people decide their own careers and interests and let them balance the pros and cons.
772.
by gwright 7y ago
That sounds nice but it requires there to be a definition of "societally high-reward education". That is difficult. Even if you find some methodology to identify the quality programs that have an appropriate "societal reward&
773.
by gwright 7y ago
Because it is an unsecured loan. It would be too easy for a newly minted graduate to declare bankruptcy, discharge the loan, and move on with their life. The only entity stupid enough to loan money to students in that world would be the gov
774.
by gwright 7y ago
It was a mistake to have GLTDs other than the two-letter country codes. That would have ensured that the DNS namespace was partitioned in a way that mapped directly to legal jurisdictions. As it is now, we have the proliferation of GTLDs th
775.
by gwright 7y ago
Any employee? Part time job for a teenager?
776.
by gwright 7y ago
So by your logic an employer would be required to pay every employee a wage that would allow them to support a family even if they don't have a family to support?
777.
by gwright 7y ago
How does that work? If the minimum wage is intended to be sufficient for an "average household", then shouldn't it be less for a household without children, and smaller still for a single person?
778.
by gwright 7y ago
Is a minimum wage intended to provide support for one person or for a family (including dependents)? You aren't really clear in your comment on this point, which is common confusion in much discussion of this topic. If it is for an ent
779.
by gwright 7y ago
I think it is a mistake to think that relations between sovereign nations is based on "rule of law". Yes there are legal principles involved, but mostly, sovereign nations deal with other sovereign nations via realpolitik. On the
780.
by gwright 7y ago
> It happened swiftly (no pun intended [1]), there was no discussion, only power. Not trying to take a stance on the wisdom of these policies, but this is a nice example of how realpolitik/power-politics/game-of-thrones is stil

More ›