pqtyw

12 ms·

241.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Both, I think. The first iPhone was more of a prototype. No, apps and no 3G. It had a great browser but you could barely use it anywhere outside your home/office. You had Symbian, Palm, Windows CE devices which had all of that and keyb
242.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> Nobody needed to be convinced an iPhone was a good idea It still took a couple of years, though. Of course in hindsight its rather obvious. But there were other smartphones and they were (on paper at least) superior in quite a few ways
243.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not equating the values themselves, as you said they are the polar opposite. And to be honest I'm certainly not a fan of moral relativism in the direct sense. The methods seem more concerning
244.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Its tricky, though. There might be people who are doing a perfectly good job and kicking them arbitrarily might be suboptimal. Then there is room for quite a lot of direct or indirect corruption. e.g. if you know you won't have a job i
245.
by pqtyw 1y ago
I guess having parties funded entirely by small private donations or maybe a way to optionally allocate some share of the taxes you pay yourself and banning all direct funding from government and corporations could be the least bad option.
246.
by pqtyw 1y ago
I don't, you don't either, quite a few people in North Korea might view it differently. My point is what methods do you use to "instil civic virtue"? How do you define it? And most importantly how do you prevent people f
247.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Having a massive head start at stopping or slowing down climate change would have been quite nice, though. Even if it weren't a permanent solution. But yes, I agree that fossil fuels also had a lot of very significant political, econom
248.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> ATTACKS ON THE LIVE-STOCK! It's rather interesting how Italy or Poland can fit several times more livestock, people and wolves into significantly less area. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view&
249.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> but only because the population has increased a lot Swedish wolf population is extremely small relative to its geographical size. There are less than 400 wolves in Sweden. For example there are 1500 wolves in Poland, possibly twice tha
250.
by pqtyw 1y ago
That's how totalitarian regimes maintain their grip on power as well. At the end of the day someone needs to define what "civic virtue" is, if its done top down well that might not necessarily work out that well (of course it
251.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Unfortunately that seems to be highly subjective and different people have a very different understanding of what "well educated" means.
252.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> What if some people should have more or less say in something. Yes, I certainly agree. The problem (which IMHO outweighs all the benefits by quite a bit) is that when you allow drawing these artificial lines the ones in charge of them
253.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> giving all campaigns a fixed stipend off public money How do you allocate that? Surely you can't give anyone who asks the same amount. So you favour parties which are already entrenched. Of course that has quite a few upsides but
254.
by pqtyw 1y ago
And most party funding comes from the government which favours party which are already in power? Not that this is a horrible system but it does have rather obvious downsides. e.g. that doesn't seem to be working that well in Hungary or
255.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Or complete stagnation and entrenchment of current political class and their networks. Not that its necessarily not the case anyway but it would be very heard for anyone outside the system to break in.
256.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Well, its way too late now. 80 reactors were launched between 1960 and 1970, 185 between 70s, 237 in the 80s, in the 90s it was barely 60. Instead if it kept doubling every decade it would be well over 10%. Of course electrification of tran
257.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Because presumably France for instance would likely view someone blowing up one of their plants the same way as a nuclear attack. Given their nuclear deterrence policies that would end up badly for both sides
258.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate Those are still very low compared to fossil fuels. I mean in hindsight if that was something people cared about 40-50 years ago we'd be in a much bette
259.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Wasn't gas what killed nuclear in the 80s (in addition to the moral panic)?
260.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> suddenly care about "nature" Obviously its extremely arbitrary and selective. https://www.wwf.no/dyr-og-natur/truede-arter/ulv-i-norge/ret... Moral posturing and virtue signalling is a huge par
261.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> because they want to preserve the nature as it is. In Norway? Or by nature as it is you mean managed nature "parks" or reindeer herding areas? Don't Scandinavians generally vehemently support the eradication of native sp
262.
by pqtyw 1y ago
What's the point though? Isn't the variable cost of nuclear very low in relative terms?
263.
by pqtyw 1y ago
There are nuclear plants in much warmer places than France. And well.. in hindsight climate change probably wouldn't be as bad as it is if nuclear continued growing at the same pace as in the 60s and 70s. > Hint: it is because they
264.
by pqtyw 1y ago
> OK to wipe a continent Why not exaggerate to the "entire planet" if we are going this way.. Regardless, in hindsight humanity could have prevented (at least to a significant extent) climate change if we doubled down on nuclea
265.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Still, though, if nuclear continued growing at the same pace it was until the 80s we'd be in a massively better spot climate change wise. Sure, these days its too expensive in relative terms but switching back to fossil fuels due to al
266.
Microsoft swerves EU antitrust fine with price deal for unbundled Teams(reuters.com)
1 points by pqtyw 1y ago|0 comments
267.
by pqtyw 1y ago
How is that related to the comment above?
268.
by pqtyw 1y ago
So if a party which rejects some policy loses the election (possible even directly because of that) their opponents who always supported that law wouldn't be allowed to vote on it again? Seems extremely easy to abuse...
269.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Interesting seeing people downvoting this. I mean this is literally what happened after Brexit: > you should look at recent history (since the 80s-90s) in Britain .. and even backbenchers in government have no power at all All pro EU Con
270.
by pqtyw 1y ago
Maybe we should also ban all parties that don't win the election for the next 10-15 years? Makes as much sense...

More ›