Frozenlock

So... planning your actions to respect the law is illegal.

Glorious.

There is a "it", _that's the whole point of the movie_!

The twist is when you realize that it wasn't a woman (which you can easily forget by how 'human' it acts), but a heartless robot doing everything in its power to obtain what it wanted.

"and even the author tried to weasel out by saying that the robot doesn't actually have a sex"

There's like 5 minutes where the protagonist discuss with the builder about why he gendered the robots. The authors were clearly aware they could have made a non-gendered robot.

(Now, the builder was enjoying them sexually, but that's a character in a story, not the authors.)

Of course, the ultimate need for a gendered robot is create the set for the story.

1. To get us, the audience, to be able to relate to it. Nobody is going to care if you format a super-toaster hard drives. They will if the toaster looks and act like a human being.

2. To enable the protagonist to be even more emotionally involved with the robot.

"and this says more about what the authors think of robots and female sexuality than anything else."

It says they know how to write a story, not much more.

"In this case, it says that the authors really think female bots are about sex and male bots do not necessarily have to be about sex."

Wait, what?

--- Spoilers ---

If anything, the authors think of humans (more specifically men in the movie) as being all about sex.

Ava plays the seduction game because she(it) knows humans are susceptible to it.

I'm a machine, have google-like knowledge of human interaction, have a nice artificial body, and I know I can deceive everyone simply by looking defenseless. What's the most straightforward way to obtain what I want? To tell everyone to fuck off? No, not really....

The way she(it) acted was the cold and logical thing to do.

I would add to this that looking at the 'intent' of a law is the worst possible way to look at it.

There's no law out there with the disclosed intent of killing children, or making sure some people stay poor, or protecting a market from competition.

Every law is always 'for the good of the Universe and it's a wonder we survived this long without it'.

The only way we can judge a law is by its REAL consequences, not the PR surrounding it.

The demo: http://re-demo.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/

"Decision ready"

Wait, does that mean something?

I know who he is, but only because Richard Dean Anderson played in SG1.

Somewhat serious answer: Because in the US they don't like to give you real prices.

They give you an artificially low price and then expect you, under social pressure, to give a little more through tip or service charge.

Replace gold coin by dollar bill.

Do you live by this standard?

In other words, you never accept a dollar bill unless it comes directly from the printing press or if you can retrace its entire history?

And downvoted posts become impossible to read unless you use a custom CSS.

Nice.

Then I wonder why HN sounds like a cult on some subjects...

It's really not.

Take a gold coin for example. You can test it's indeed made of gold without needing to know where it's from.

Same is true for good money as a general rule. Say you get a US dollar bill. What you want to know is if it's genuine, not who's been using it.

> "Imagine a world where every transaction (...) is open and transparent. No way to hide that corruption, that drug money or whatever else corporations and states are up to. No way to just make up money on the spot if you are rich and have a printer. No way to hide inequalities, at the workplace, between classes in a country."

That's just wishful thinking. Most corruption and inequalities are in plain sight, wrapped in a web of social power and blackmailing. You think the farmers will stop getting subsidies? Or military industrial complex will grind to a halt? And what if you consider that drug money is legit? Plenty of markets are legit but don't have the support of the government.

What you are talking about is not a way to remove corruption; it's a way to insure those in power will have even more power. It's also making sure the politically correct dominates everything. Better not buy something that could go against the will of the Church, because they'll know it...

No, really, traceable money is it's own kind of hell.

"TokuMX engineering team recently quit Tokutek "

I would like to know how it happened. Do you have a link to an article or any other source of info?

And? Demand deposits are still 100% whole.

I don't.

With a full reserve, demand deposits shouldn't be lent, but term deposits can be.

With this, you maintain a full reserve and continue to have lenders/borrowers.

You are conflating lending and fractional reserve.

It's possible to have lenders and borrowers without operating a fractional reserve.

Which part of the guidelines? I reread the entire thing and didn't find where it would apply.

Please tell me such filter is for blocking violent images and politicians, not the natural reproduction process of our species.

Yeah.

The sad thing about this is that OP specifically asked for career advice, not an open "should I / would you do it".

I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes. Which part of what I said didn't you like?

Is it because you think he should testify, and you just downvote the opposed side?

Is it because you don't agree with my hypothetical employer?

Is it because you don't like the distinction between morality and law?

It would be much more helpful to say what you don't agree with.

Edit: OP, if you read what I wrote, you will see why you shouldn't use the number of upvotes to make your decision: the point is precisely that a 'popular' choice can quickly turn south. At this point, all these upvotes will have disappeared and you will be alone facing the consequences.

----

If they did something so awful that it's keeping you awake at night, do it.

Otherwise, don't.

...

Wait... are you still reading?

Don't!

....

Okay, darn it...

If you STILL want to do it:

Career-wise, make sure it's something which is universally seen as awful AND will probably continue to be seen as such. If the wind changes direction, there's still going to be a record about what you've done. Things seen as obviously right can be seen as obviously wrong in the time of a single decade. When this happens, the 'major law firm' and all those who did encourage you to do it will magically vanish.

> Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?"

Depends on what and why you did it.

If you testify only because someone broke the law, from my point of view as a hypothetical employer, you are a huge liability. Most people break the law multiple times a day and don't even know it. I honestly don't want people around me who are ready to report me just 'because I broke the law'.

If you've done it for moral reasons, even if I agree with you, I might have to refuse to hire you because it might gives a bad image to my business.

Now, what if I agree with you and you did something which is currently politically correct. Is there any advantages? Not really... I still don't know if you are good at your job; I'll have to evaluate you the same as everybody else.

In short, there's no advantages (employer/employee-wise) to doing it. Only potential downsides.

It's like behind an asshole on a social network. It might gives your friend a few giggles, but it can hurt you years down the line.

All value is determined by humans; you can't say that humans undervalue something. That simply doesn't make sense.

What you can say, however, is that humans prefer the statu quo. (Or as you would say, the cost of measuring opportunity costs.)

Any transaction need to provide at least some additional benefit to be considered worthwhile.

For example, I won't sell you my car for only 5% over the market value because it's not worth it for me.

You coming every day and breaking a mirror, a whipper, or steeling a wheel would not correct any economic calculation 'error'.

But why do you even want to punish? There's already a cost associated with doing nothing with the land! Why do you consider it's not enough?

Imagine a world where if you take a day off (or just slack off). You not only don't get paid, but also receive a negative salary because 'punishment'. The punishment would also be proportional to the salary of comparable individual (not you, other people). The more they work, the more you must pay for not working in addition of not getting paid.

All this in the name of maximizing your contribution to society... How would you feel about that? Wouldn't you say that 'not getting paid' is plenty already?

But the point was that the vacant lot was somehow "free" to the owner. It's not, he is sacrificing any value he might get by selling it.

If someone sees a better potential use of the land (able to get more value out of it), he can propose to buy it at a higher price.

A land-value taxes is just a multiplier of the opportunity cost, but without any real economic foundation (no one is proposing to buy the land at a higher price).

The harm for the owner in leaving the lot vacant for a decade is opportunity cost. If he is in a valuable spot, it would be advantageous to sell and just do something else with the money.

Imagine high land taxes in the middle of the desert. Is it an incentive to build? Quite the contrary.

You should record your calls. (Assuming you live in a jurisdiction where only 1 party (you) need to know the conversation is recorded.)

I'm much more open to receiving phone calls now, because even if it's much harder to search an audio file, at least I have something to search. If I'm not sure if I forgot something, I can just open up the file and listen to it again. I would still rather get an email, but some people just NEED to take a phone for whatever reason.

Given that you have some trouble hearing, you can take the time you want to re-listen to a conversation with the volume as you like it.

As a bonus, it's also helpful to get a hold of a certain kind of people that thinks they can say anything and are not accountable because it's not in writing.

I inherit wealth from my past self.

If I earned $100 yesterday, I have $100 available to spend today.

Is it destroying the 'fundamental reward mechanisms of society'?

What is the difference if you substitute myself with say one of my children? The wealth was still earned, I should still be able to decide what to do with it.

I would recommend this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJwUaVDIPXg

If anything, the tax is what is destroying the fundamental reward mechanisms of society.

Why would that even be a negative?

It's very easy to be 'busy all the time'.

There's nothing magical about a name.

Hell, it's not even a unique identifier.

When I'm on the net, I decide to use another name than the one my parents gave me.

I can change my Internet name at will, with the only downside of not being easily identified by those who already know me.

The same should be true in 'real life'. Let the parents give the name they want, but let the child change it at will.

"an otherwise competent computer user"

"numerous IE toolbars"

IE?

Not only is it off-topic, but this is pretty much a USA-only post.