> they weren't experimenting on specific community members.
Yes, they were. What kind of argument is this? If you submit a PR to the kernel you are explicitly engaging with the maintainer(s) of that part of the kernel. That's usually not more than half a dozen people. Seems pretty specific to me.
> Americans will get their first taste of extended range EVs (full EV powertrain with a tiny ICE that charges the battery) and they explode in popularity.
This happened, it was called the Chevy Volt. Nobody bought it.
I totally agree that you can make the argument that people didn't buy them because they weren't sexy. Post-2008, new cars became luxury items almost exclusively. So given that, there's no reason they would catch on now unless somebody makes a sexy one.
Oh that's interesting, I didn't know that. In this case I am talking about the Ram 1500. I think this one will make a splash. A truck with almost 700 miles of range. Americans think they hate EVs but they really hate the lack of EV infrastructure.
> But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you.
I really don't want to believe that people leading these huge corporations are dumb enough to actually think this, but at the same time I know better.
The point is a bad one that should be missed. $3 isn't negligible. It isn't usually [0] worth spending $4 to recover, but it is nonetheless money. People can't just arbitrarily charge each other $3 for nothing.
[0] Game theory says sometimes it makes sense to be unreasonable.
It's not arbitrary. It's part of an ongoing relationship that is worth significantly more. That $3 came out of the trust they have with the company. But even though they're wary now, they still have some trust and want to use the service in the future.
Some random guy asking for $3 is a wildly different situation.
It's not about the $3, it's about the relationship.
A close analogy would be Netflix going up $2. If you keep paying that, it doesn't mean you think the money is negligible, and it doesn't mean you would give that money to someone else. And this holds whether Netflix got consent before the increase or scammed you out of it or anything in between; those things affect the decision but they don't change the fundamental nature of it.
The company is valuing the relationship at <$3. In practice there can be no "relationship" with an entity that wilfully steals $3; even in the commercial sense. It is strictly transactional and they're signalling that on any transaction they're willing to cheat you.
You can keep using them if you want. But history has no meaning when dealing with that sort of company.
I have no idea why you're downvoted. Why on earth would they delete their most valuable competitive advantage? Isn't it even in the fine print that you feed them training data by using their product, which at the very minimum is logged?
I thought the entire game these guys are playing is rushing to market to collect more data to diversify their supply chain from the stolen data they've used to train their current model. Sure, certain enterprise use cases might have different legal requirements, but certainly the core product and the average "import openai"-enjoyer.
> Why on earth would they delete their most valuable competitive advantage?
Becuase they are bound by their terms of service? Because if they won't no business would ever use their service and without businesses using their service they won't have any revenue?
As a Jewish Hungarian, I remember respecting the `NEIN JUDE` signs (as a people attempting to preserve their cultural identity, which I feel a nation is entitled)... even if it made finding a shop to visit extremely difficult.
This was eighteen years ago, and I hope nothing has changed in Germany.
Not every form of discrimination is the holocaust.
It is very important to not be extreme when dealing with human ignorance. For mild cases of discrimination, especially those coming from fear and ignorance, engaging in full confrontation is not necessarily the most effective strategy to reduce said discrimination. It might actually increase it.
Now if faced with hate speech, that's a much higher degree. That needs a different strategy to reduce it.
But unless you are looking at actual segregation and genocide, dropping a Nazi accusation is hardly constructive.
One of the "justifications," should you desire to care for the Japanese POV, was explained this way:
We grew up in this small town all seeing each other naked; for outsiders to come in and disrupt their `normal`, would be disrespectful to their culture.
My native partner and I eventually found a large enough / open enough spa which allowed us both in without concern (we just had to travel more, which was fine/informative; and promise not to "be disrespectful" // fuck).
Definitely discrimination against non-Japanese might still be common in less-urban areas ... yet your "rewording" my comment to be Nazi-themed is (by your own perogative) just another unrelated confirmation of Godwin's Law.
Oh, sorry, are we supposed to respectfully inform someone why segregation is bad when they practically paraphrase the 14 words? I thought my wordplay got my point across pretty well, frankly.
What do you think about some of the religious communes / islands which do not allow women, outright, e.g. Okinoshima Island; Mount Athos.
What about places which exlude born-men?
Shouldn't tiny Nepal be allowed to massively restrict tourism/outsiders (should it so choose, as it does)?
Where/when are we going to be allowed to have these necessary conversations, without the spite/tone? People ought'ta be able to self-isolate, of their own choosing.
You're missing the point - it's not whether plastic is the best material for a use case, it's about the cost/benefit analysis of using it. Think asbestos - really good at not catching fire, with the slight side effect of royally messing up your lungs.
Plastic is great for all the reasons you describe, but it's really hell on the environment. The thing that offsets that side effect is its cheapness, and that's majorly a function of capitalism/private land ownership/the general way the world is organized right now.
I don't think it's true that plastic is cheap as a function of capitalism, private land ownership, or the general way the world is organized right now. It's cheap because it can be produced quickly and at scale from widely available raw materials. Abolishing capitalism wouldn't change the physics and engineering of natural gas wells, nor of the lumber mills and mining required to make paper and wood.
You mention asbestos, but I'm pretty confident we would not have banned asbestos if we didn't have other comparably effective building insulation materials. (Indeed, it's still used in many poorer countries where people are unable to afford the alternatives.)
> Abolishing capitalism wouldn't change the physics and engineering of natural gas wells, nor of the lumber mills and mining required to make paper and wood.
Of course it wouldn’t, I don’t think anybody would believe this. Abolishing capitalism would change the incentive for collecting and utilising those natural resources, though. It’s a lot easier to justify the made up idea of private property when you’re sitting on a pile of rocks that you believe will make you a lot of money than it is to justify sitting on a pile of rocks that a few people decided might be processed into something that’s a net positive to all of society. I have to wonder if plastics would be as ubiquitous as they are today if we didn’t have a very strong social and economic incentive to drill for its raw materials.
I don't see why abolishing capitalism would weaken the social and economic incentives to drill for natural gas either. Would a post-capitalist society no longer require electricity or heating?
Yes they would require those things, but there would no longer be an incentive to use energy sources that have the marginal benefit of making a few people very rich with the incredible downside of killing our planet.
Yes, they were. What kind of argument is this? If you submit a PR to the kernel you are explicitly engaging with the maintainer(s) of that part of the kernel. That's usually not more than half a dozen people. Seems pretty specific to me.
reply