bjl

Its a little different here. He was clearly being exceedingly reckless, and power outages cost lives all the time.

Jail is probably excessive, a very hefty fine and a ban from flying drones again seems more appropriate to me.

Capitalism just means private ownership of the means of production. What you call corporo-fascist is just the natural end game of such an economic system.

It should have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense that operating an unlicensed taxi service was illegal.

> I realize that leaving a job isn't easy but an engineer that makes it to Uber is probably more than capable jumping ship.

Who knows how long that will be the case. Nowadays, I imagine a prolonged employment at Uber is a serious black mark on a resume.

At this point (and really, long before this point) any ethical engineer would have left this company. Those remaining are tacitly condoning this type of activity, and should take a long hard look at their priorities.

Apple 'Genius' definitely falls in that category.

First of all, where did I say anything about prison?

Second, this was clearly antagonism directed against someone of a different race, and is therefore racist.

Black humor can still be racist. Something being (ostensibly) a joke doesn't mean it can't be racist/sexist/whatever.

Racism is not simply about belief, otherwise there could be no such thing as racist action.

Personally, I couldn't care less what people believe, I care what people do. And in this case what they did was clearly racist.

'Ironic' racism is still racism.

>FB issue aside, I think people should be allowed to joke about whatever they want in private.

They were allowed to post it, nothing stopped them. Its just that after they did Harvard made the (IMO reasonable) decision to revoke their acceptance.

Some of things they said went beyond just 'stupid posts'.

Last I checked they weren't jailed for posting racist shit on FB.

Nothing on FB is private, which these kids just learned the hard way. Can't say I feel too bad for them given the content of their posts.

That's obviously nonsense. Killing 1M people is worse than killing 1.

Nah, I'd be willing to pay more if it meant my fellow workers were all provided with the protections a union. There's more to life than just money.

Union rules change all the time. Management just isn't usually willing to offer sufficient incentive during negotiations, since that would eat in to their profits.

Why is it disingenuous. All they're providing is a stream of bytes, why should they get to dictate how those bytes are consumed.

Good. Hotels and hostels are for tourists, apartments should be for residents.

Right, businesses don't like unions because they decrease their power over employees. That's not a good argument against them, however. If anything, I'd say its a good argument for them.

I strongly disagree that contributors aren't providing content 'for free'. I request a stream of bytes from them, they provide a stream of bytes free of charge. Its up to me how I want to display those bytes, and I'm not stealing anything or breaking any contract by choosing not to render every single one.

Yes. The chicken industry is the most egregious example, but all industrialised meat production suffers from abuse problems to some degree.

That's not quite true. Curry-Howard only applies to constructivist mathematics, which is a very tiny subset of mathematics proper.

I read this as 'A cont of type r a is a function that, given a function of type a to r, returns an r'.

Manipulating people on a mass scale without their informed consent has always been considered unethical; its on you if you're trying to argue that its not.

And you're 'but what if a person does it' arguments are irrelevant - there's a clear difference of scale between the massively automated systems we're discussing and a single person with a pencil and paper.

The only way this could possibly be considered ethical is if you get informed consent from every single person the system is analysing. If you provided each person with a detailed explanation of what the data would be used for, and required them to opt-in before collecting it, that would be fine.

Otherwise, what you're doing is deeply unethical.

Really? I find the single-letter version far easier to read.