TheOperator

Oh geez looks like the other companies aren't holding them accountable and the government shouldn't hold them accountable so I guess they just aren't accountable for causing broad swathes of economic damage because they were lazily managing their networks.

The system works!

Applying the price mechanism to direct employees use of resources does have all sorts of compelling advantages even if it does introduce some overhead and certain weird pressures. I think the article makes a compelling case.

You can still charge people for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. This is just taking away charging people for having fentanyl in their purse.

>The gov't fully feeding, clothing, and sheltering large groups of addicts is impractical and unviable in most/all places.

It's completely viable it's just impractical. There are not THAT many homeless people. However there are diminishing returns for everything... Some people are on the street because they trash any home they're given access to. Also the better you take care of this population the more homeless people move to your progressive enlightened area. It's viable but nobody wants to pay for that shit when there are other social goods you could be doing.

>Some American company makes slightly less profit?

That's a bingo. Now allow me to morally justify this AMERICA style:

"When we allow foreign researchers to steal research from healthcare businesses it reduces the return on investment these businesses make. This has a chilling effect on the amount of Cancer research that can be funded. With less innovation by the world leader in Cancer research ultimately more patients will unnessecarily die and suffer"

Protecting children's charities from thieves.

>He discovered that three months of daily FMT was required to treat his autism patients,

That's quite the catch

From what I could see the teacher discouraging her from going into science after failing a math test was greatly beneficial as she became a successful author. Yet she is resentful that she was never included in the scientific establishment which seemed to be more what she wanted.

Not really the point I was SUPPOSED to get from this article though. I think I was supposed to be angry at sexism for discouraging her from becoming a scientist. She reminds me of how I feel about the cooks who discouraged me from becoming a cook although it was for the best I'm still bitter they said I shouldn't be one.

>You can only hear so many stories of behavior before you start asking what the other students were learning while one kid goes on a 15 minute meltdown.

They're learning how to deal with people which is more important than the crap on the whiteboard.

I hear so much about how our schools are held back by accomidating problem students. Yet in my experience it was the students always disrupting the lesson plan and the class that caused me to learn shit. The teacher left to their own devices will merely teach kids how to get great marks in academic subjects which is a horrible waste of everybodies time. It only teaches people how to open doors.

I don't nessecarily have an issue with surveillance systems as they act as force multipliers for all sorts of noble causes.

Surveillance systems should strictly be used for physical safety, anti-vandalism, and loss prevention purposes. You're not preparing kids to succeed by micromanaging them from behind a series of monitors. At all. People who intend to use the system to punish the kids for swearing by no means should be allowed access. The teachers and even the principal really shouldn't even have access to reduce the temptation to abuse the surveillance system. If they keep getting access the surveillance system should be thrown in the trash.

Bosses who use similar systems to keep their employees working can also expect nothing better than mediocrity and a widespread CYA mentality.

Sure it's better to never make a mistake but so long as they don't make a habit of things like this I'm not going to think anything of it until I see more cracks in the wall.

A screw up is inevitable. A mature response is not. So the fact they gave mature response goes a long way. Although it's unfortunate that social media seems to be their emergency support channel...

What's wrong with a 256gb ssd? More than enough for plenty of use cases.

See the whole "while it would make the movement unlikely to succeed" is what I hear from politicians explaining why they don't refuse corporate donations like pledging to fight corporate greed. These people are PART of growth...

>Even though this is the most misanthropic comment I've ever seen on HN and I'm appalled you would consider writing it, I'll play along!

This modest proposal being pushed to shrink the economy would ultimately result in millions of deaths as a direct consequence. Its not a big leap to be in favor of causing death directly instead of through effective democide. I'm wondering what their position on human life is.

Pol Pot for dictator!

We need to get rid of the literate classes... Like the guy reading this... And the guy wr-

That's just it. The 12 core system years from now will have barely aged. CPUs will just have gotten larger and more expensive.

This is changing a past situation where say a CPU would lose half its value in 3 years. This incentivizes spending big and upgrading infrequently.

It absolutely is and should be an option to just shut down the damn sites. We already know they have a generally negative impact on society. Why do we need them? Relative to its size Facebook's platform really doesn't do anything that we would miss besides perhaps Birthday reminders.

I would however be keen to leave the messaging platforms open to avoid disrupting communication too severely. I also see some potential unintended consequences.

I'm doing virtualization workloads. The traditional approach is to use some old servers but there's benefits to having a newer chip in your workstation instead.

Also with CPU performance starting to taper off I think people need to also start think of their computers as longer term investments. I think the 8 core makes sense. Even my phone has 8 cores now...

I've been a diarist before logging my mood. I stopped because it was homework. Yet it was worth doing.

If you don't think the "SJW"s have their dark side you have a rose tinted view of them. The socially progressive crowd you're talking about can veer into bigotry thats "woke" because it's directed against the correct groups, and can be deeply patronizing towards the groups they're nominally trying to protect. Being an SJW is a combination of having socially progressive views, being bigoted yet in denial of this, and being intensely judgemental.

I've been nominally protected by these social progressives all my life... yet honestly the most brutal and abusive things ever said to me escaped the lips of a certain subset of woke progressives who are so convinced of peoples vulnerability they can't help but see them as weak. Theres people who develop self-serving savior complexes that spout out progressive buzzwords while not helping anybody but theirselves.

In my personal experience I've had alt-right people who browse /pol/ offer me a drink and apolgize for saying bigoted shit. Have yet to experience an SJW do the same for patronizing me. Can't normalize criticism of progressives though because as the above poster explains, I'm only slowing down social progress that benefits me.

I broke a laptop and didn't replace it because I'm trying to learn to use my android phone as a tool more. It does have a usb-c port.

It works okay. Needs more drivers. The issue with using phones as a tool isn't the phones theirselves its the surrounding infrastructure. If somebody wants a business idea how about selling phone compatible tools?

The socioeconomic benefits from stopping drug companies from acquiring a larger and larger chunk of the economy would mean greater equality & more societal resources that could be directed towards other purposes than medicine exclusively for the rich.

If rich people don't want to die they can always subsidize medicine for the poor more than they are now. Then everybody could be a winner!

Which is why most insurance plans wouldn't cover it.

>I grew up in lesser means and I might be dead or my family bankrupted had I grew up in the U.S. and paid the fair ER fees each time.

>or

What an optimist you are!

Sure of course its incomprehensibly impractical.

A one-time pass is still uncrackable.

Take your secret. Write it on a piece of grid paper. Fill EVERY FIELD on another piece of grid paper with random data. Transform every character on the first piece of paper based on the corresponding characters on the second piece of paper and write the result on a third piece of grid paper. Then burn the first piece of paper.

It's not possible to read the 3rd piece of paper without the 2nd now. You also obscure the length by filling the second piece of paper with data.

UK politics are a dysfunctional shitshow run by power-hungry leaders pushing policy they don't believe in putting their parties first.

IIRC it comes from only of the early researcherson the subject who I think was ballparking in regards to safety.

Until people come out with some real data I would stick with the cautious approach.

>It’s possible that Google cutting off Huawei will actually backfire, because it makes having a viable alternative to Android a MUST HAVE instead of just NICE TO HAVE.

I got the impression that the United States forced their hand.

Science has certainly become a fantastic way to bullshit people. Combined with how science is funded now its created a weird status quo where things that wealthy interest groups want to be true will tend to have more studies which point to the desired conclusion. Something that's true can be less scientifically backed than something that's false if the truth isn't in peoples financial interests.

I also see a weird phenomena where I'll see people who are wrong like flat earthers running DIY scientific experiments. Yet this crowd seems to be thought of as generally anti-science when they're probably more scientifically curious than the actual population. Being "scientific" means subscribing to a certain set of consensus beliefs among scientists. You can not use science at all yourself directly and be considered a scientific person so long as you just believe in certain things.

I would actually blame insurance companies more than pharmacutical companies for the trajectory of the mental health field as they won't give doctors money to treat their patients if they don't first slap their patients with a stigmatised label.

This pressure increases the pressure to make it so more of the population is defined as being mentally ill so they can get medical treatment.