Curvature5868

Not a rust zealot, but https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/tree/main... comes to mind.

At least 42% of Americans live in a household with a gun so it isn't particularly useful to write off the anecdote.

Psychologically troubled? Morally?

I think your point is well made. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of drug users in Oregon (and Portland in particular) who do not have a private place to do drugs. They live in tents on the sidewalk[1]. You see people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalk or in parks all over town.

One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business.

1: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purc...

We can’t even achieve this in the judiciary. See Federalist Society.

Question for both of you: What would it take for the MRISC32 CPU to use FuryGPU as a peripheral over PCIe?

Understood. I probably should have said "potentially beneficial". A phone is a tool. It can be used or abused like any other.

I think it is hard to argue that you can't learn anything or socialize on your phone.

The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing, also expose them to constant marketing and propaganda, even within the confines of their bedrooms, as they attempt to connect with peers or complete tasks.

Previously, children's exposure to marketing and propaganda was mostly confined to their entertainment hours, during which they watched television or read magazines. There was at least some hope for moderation. However, "apps" have blurred these boundaries, as the same devices used for education and social interaction are also channels for persistent advertising and messaging, making it harder to limit exposure to just "entertainment" time.

In your original comment, you suggest "misplaced anger against Facebook". Many people hold the belief that Facebook's products are harmful to children.

Following from that, I can imagine a few viewpoints: 0) Parents are wrong, Facebook is awesome! 1) Facebook has violated existing laws (these lawsuits are exploring that space). 2) Parents should be frustrated with legislators for failing to regulate social media. 3) Parents should be angry with themselves for allowing their children to use Facebook's products.

I'm curious which (if any) of these viewpoints you hold.

Let's assume that the lawsuits are poorly constructed. That does not necessarily mean that Facebook is harmless. It just means these lawsuits aren't sufficient to prove harm.

Consider this analogy: Just because the DA doesn't have enough evidence to convict in a murder trial, that doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent. I just means they haven't been proven guilty.

Is it possible for private companies to pay dividends? Let's say you retire and you own a portion of a small but thriving company. Could that company potentially provide you with dividends as a form of income?

A viable solution might be the creation of an insurance fund to compensate for any unintended damage caused by prescribed burns. This fund, funded by utility companies especially those in wildfire-prone areas, would function similarly to banks' contributions to the FDIC. This could alleviate liability concerns, thereby encouraging proactive wildfire prevention strategies.

Should pornography be allowed to be displayed on billboards or in storefront windows? Is it the job of parents to cover their children's eyes as they stroll through town? As a society we have (mostly) set limits on where pornography can be accessed. Adult shops have a proprietor who can shoo kids out. Is the www different from public streets?