chris-orgmenta

Would Microsoft possibly just reenable this through updates?

Tangentially related: Windows 11 (pro, at least) does not initially let you create a local account (in the setup wizard, it will try to force you to log in with an online account). UNLESS, you just intentionally use incorrect credentials... In which case it will then pop up with 'Not a recognised account. Would you like to create a local account for now?'. But, then it will disable updates past a certain point. So I guess MS has got me, there.

Sure, hence explicitly mentioning oxymoron, social dynamics and all the other caveats. I'm on the same page.

My thought is that despite this, there is value in investigating it from my devil's advocate angle that I posted.

I think the Forest for the Trees take is this:

They don't plan to instigate war in a vacuum, or trigger anything themselves. They think that there is high probably of global conflict in the next 4 years, and think that they may capitalize from it / would mobilize given certain opportunities (and blind eyes / distracted nations).

Agreed, + Bandwagon Effect, Tactical Voting, plus other effects?

I haven't come across a term that covers what we're talking about in full scope(?)(hence my clumsy tug of war metaphor), but that's probably because I am peripheral to game theory / not in the psychology space

(We have lots of terms for the emergent effects - Overton window, Political Polarization etc. - But possibly not for the overall phenomena of why polarization occurs?)

> NASA seems to have a long standing tradition of sweeping problems under the rug

I can't comment on whether the premise is correct, but I think "So why is it not okay to write about this?" would be mostly due a 'tug of rope phenomenon'.

If you see a tug of rope game on an issue and are a centrist, people feel they can't go and start tugging the middle of the rope in a different axis (or from the 'opposing side'). Instead, people feel the need to go to whichever end of the rope is 'unfairly losing' in their eyes, and pull it in an existing axis to bring the centre of the rope into a range that they agree with.

Thus, in the grand scheme of things people are hesitant to call out NASA, because they feel that there too much anti-NASA or funding sentiment already.

And it's a legitimate aspect of game theory to consider (in a pragmatic / real scenario) - But it's definitely succumbing a zero-sum game model, and is a tragedy of the commons.

Would this be better than flexible panels wrapping the existing body panels? (given lesser efficiency + only a small portion of them being angled correctly at any time, but little to no extra drag and could be charging batteries while in motion).

(Sorry, this is possibly just my naivety here) - Would Mullvad+WireGuard still be an option?

https://mullvad.net/en/help/connecting-to-mullvad-vpn-from-r...

(And allows you to pay by posting cash or paying by cryptocurrency)

I think it's a bit unethical to post narrow opinion pieces on 'psychologytoday' while masquerading as fact (strong words, but I would simply be happy with them posting 'opinion piece' at the top)

I disagree with the article, or at least think it is blinkered.

Some of my best friends were made through work.

Drama has nothing to do with workplace friends, for some of us.

I consider the article to be potentially damaging.

I would call this article to be an artefact from the before-times mindset, but I do understand that I am not in the same position as a lot of FTEs.

Sure, I am definitely concerned that my high level worries are being nudged to and fro by certain parties subconsciously (and the resulting rabbit hole of locating the actual source / counter, counter-counter propaganda etc...)

But on the ground, I would be considered an enemy of the billionaires. SMEs and large corps would benefit, but billionaires and trillionaire mega corps would sacrifice a lot.

The progressive income taxes I implemented would probably seem absurd to most HN readers (negative at the bottom, ridiculously high at the top) The inheritance taxes: same. Corporation taxes: same. I would propose that X is forced to sell to the US gov (unless large changes are implemented), which would seem absurd to even most centrists and many leftists. (If it's indeed a town square, then we will make it a proper town square). I would force breakup of most of the largest companies in very specific ways (and think it's feasible, without sacrificing a nation's competitiveness and productivity).

My idealistic stance is that the very top can effectively be curtailed while letting the innovation and big business continue either undisturbed or empowered. I.e. it is not 'have my cake and eat it too', but 'There are two tiers of elites to deal with in very different ways'. Remove the billionaire playground, keep the capitalist innovation.

> My fear about curbing it is that we seem to lack a collective understanding of pernicious root causes, or even a majority viewpoint

It also seems to be one of the few (non-war) ways to research & kick start an industry that has an extremely high barrier to entry.

Flight, rocketry, railroads, steam, telegraph, physics breakthroughs, etc.: All arguably required big capitalist periods and/or escalating conflict in to get their start (not to entirely dismiss government initiatives, nor innovations made during lean times).

So I am equally wary, and partly because this is how we can most peacefully 'plant trees that future generations can sit under'. Those trees might just never exist if we don't go all-in at some point.

Having said that, I would support certain anti-competition breakups.

I suppose the common consensus seems to involve some of these:

- It is partly in our heads / rose tinted specs / things are actually getting better / media reports on bad things more than good

- The system favours the unethical (it is easier to make it to the top of government if you are less ethical - or at least, less idealistic)

- Being ethical in general has a cost (you do everything that your competitors do, + also an ethical thing on top, which adds an extra cost and makes you less 'competitive')

- Maybe some of the things we see are just pragmatism, not evil (not the things you mention of course, but in general people may see the things they are doing as a consequentialist move).

- They may think they are the lesser of two evils, or otherwise justify their actions

- Differing views (You might see it as evil and they think it's good. Most people wake up with some kind of 'good intentions', they just are not good intentions in our view)

- Difference in 'individualism vs collectivism' values. Some people just think that the sacrifice is worth it for some supposed common good.

- People that are power hungry, are more likely to go after that power. Power hungry does not positively correlate with morals, or at least diverts attention away from morals.

- “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and all that

- Idealists possibly get into power only to find that it's different on the inside. The 'grey hair effect' - Young bright anti-war meritocratic PM gets into office, sees something we don't, gets disollusioned or 'pragmatic', ends up committing to several wars.

- They don't see what they have done / they don't get the full impact delivered to them / they have a skewed picture of what's happened

- They don't control their generals as well as they thought

- Racism and other hate/fear

- Tragedy of the commons + a single person can't change the direction of the behemoth

- It gets funding from other nation states / actors that gain from the events

- The person may think that life is a zero-sum game, and they have to take from others rather than thinking synergy & cooperation would work

- etc.

I want progressive fees on copyright/IP/patent usage, and worldwide gov cooperation/legislation (and perhaps even worldwide ability to use works without obtaining initial permission, although let's not go into that outlandish stuff)

I want a scaling license fee to apply (e.g. % pegged to revenue. This still has an indirect problem with different industries having different profit margins, but still seems the fairest).

And I want the world (or EU, then others to follow suit) to slowly reduce copyright to 0 years* after artists death if owned by a person, and 20-30 years max if owned by a corporation.

And I want the penalties for not declaring usage** / not paying fees, to be incredibly high for corporations... 50% gross (harder) / net (easier) profit margin for the year? Something that isn't a slap on the wrist and can't be wriggled out of quite so easily, and is actually an incentive not to steal in the first place.)

[*]or whatever society deems appropriate.

[**]Until auto-detection (for better or worse) gets good enough.

IMO that would allow personal use, encourages new entrants to market, encourages innovation, incentivises better behaviour from OpenAI et al.

That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law.

OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data.

It's like if the building companies implemented the 2nd staircase, but only so they could measure who is going up and down it. Not for saving lives.

If they were opt in, or unnecessary tracking wasn't implemented in the first place, then the banners could be elegant or gone.

But I do agree that the legislation (especially the ultra focus on cookies specifically) was... blinkered & short sighted.

I agree that's a big part of it.

Although to play devil's advocate a little: There are plenty of great subreddits that I had to find on my own that are thriving. Smaller subreddits, but I suggest that's partly because the people that would be interested in them aren't offered them, so it's a self fulfilling prophecy to some extent.

The Reddit recommendation algorithm is appallingly bad (non existent or negative value), with zero insight into who I am as a person (yet).

Their "don't show posts like this" button does nothing, I believe.

If I click into a subreddit out of interest, decide it isn't for me and mute the subreddit: Reddit thinks I like the muted subreddit and suggests similar. In the last 6 months, after turning on recommendations out of interest:

- I have muted ~100 sports subreddits (I do not like watching sport, reddit! Please hear me, please take this information for free!)

- I have muted ~30 soccer subreddits.

- I have muted ~30 Aussie rules subreddits.

- I have muted ~20 pop subreddits, ~10 death metal subreddits.

- I have muted ~30 celebrity-person subreddits.

- I have muted ~30 "let's laugh at this unfortunate person" subreddits.

- I have muted ~10 outwardly racist subreddits.

- I have muted ~10 "let's be so frugal as to not enjoy life / here's some online work for <$5/hr" subreddits.

But still, next week reddit will try to get me to sub to r/astonvilla or something.

If I accidentally click on something though, I won't hear the end of it.

I have no faith in reddit ever being turned around. The data may be worth something. But the codebase is a liability in every sense of the word, not an asset. Neither new nor old.reddit are salvageable at this point. Perhaps they have some valuable internal tools. I wouldn't bet money on it.

I'm sure their engineers are talented, but their bosses have blindfolded, handcuffed and toxified them. I have seen nothing of value given by them to the community. I have seen nothing but leaching, dark patterns, bugs, memory problems, jittering, unethical business models and poor Personnel choices.

Maybe I've missed something and I have a very unfair lens here.

The IP is worth nothing. The data will not be used for anything good. Deleting comments etc. will, of course, just be a boolean/flag column rather than true row deletion.

Am I unfair or mistaken? And am I incorrect in saying 'The IPO will do nothing of good for consumers or the industry'?.

You both might enjoy simondev on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPwR7h5SnOE&list=PLRL3Z3lpLm...

Three.js, so very accessible and you can have games load up within 2000ms. You can use the corresponding github codebases - I loaded up his minecraft demo successfully a while back.

> Nah. This is just lying to ourselves to feel better. Workers do not need to be compelled and it does not help them at all.

"maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on" was meant to indicate a benefit to society, not the individual. I.e., society demands that they move on, for better or worse. I don't think anyone's pretending that they're doing the individual a favour, in the short run at least.

I am on the side of cars (long term), even though I hate cars, the inefficiency, the space issues, the anti-pedestrian externalities, etc.

Ultimately, to design a transport system that benefits all of society, it needs to go from point A to point B. Light rail / public transport will always need a +somethingelse, in order to do that. Or we end up expanding the rail infra so much that we have just reinvented roads, but a little more constrained. Or we end up with car shares. Either way is fine.

I just don't see how to cater for lots of different disabilities and needs without 'cars' being a (maybe small) part of it. Regardless of what path we take, I just see the evolution converging back on a car-like vehicle for a substantial portion of the freight/transport industry (albeit 'trains' of them, but not physically connected), even if it's mostly final mile. But people and things don't want to hop between transport modes. They want to step outside their door into a vehicle, then out again at the destination.

Anyway... Self driving vehicles could be worse than some drivers currently, but it sure is better than SOME drivers I have seen. For an industry that has only had 15yrs direct investment, it's already better than bad drivers from my view - So it's almost time to start making driving licenses slightly harder to get and keep, IMO (it's so easy to get a license. It's hard to take them away, unless it's after an incident. There are so many very unsafe drivers).

That's a long way of saying that I concur with your comment.

Or to put it another way:

It looks like Boris created, nurtured and sold something (to safe, loving hands), with nice closure. That to me sounds like something to be very proud of, and something that you can cherish and reflect back on with positive (not bitter-sweet) emotion, and keep in contact with the friends made along the way.

And the freedom and opportunities ahead are also something that might be harnessable? That power... You can generate a 'bubbly school-holidays' emotion from something like that. Apprehension + Excitement + Unknowing + Freedom?... I don't know, 'bubbly school holiday feeling' is what I always come back to in order to describe it.

This seems a little 'grass is greener' to me. Not sure if this is glib, but:

You can build the business again from scratch (ok, maybe you have a non compete for a while...) But you can't magic the $ you just got, out of thin air.

So he's been paid for the hard work he has done, and now if he so chooses he can do the same again, or different.

So seems like Boris is standing on the greener grass right now, to me at least. I think the post-sale reflection is naturally something that will make people question their decisions... It may be possible for Boris to Stoically rearrange his view here. There's definitely a bright shiny alternative to regret/second-guessing.

Rebel more.

Learn to love learning, earlier in life.

Less sunk cost fallacy.

Everything in moderation, law of diminishing returns.

> It is not freeing people to do more useful jobs. It is just making them unemployed.

Only if the creation of jobs is slower than the displacement... Which I agree it is, with this tech (and our slow response in gov, universities etc.). But sometimes (sounds callous but just pondering this small part of the equation), maybe jobs need to dry up in order to compel workers to move on? And this tech will open up other opportunities.

Else we are just all herders/farmers/hunter-gatherers indefinitely.

Regardless, it's quicker for me to scan my goods than for someone else to do it (and with half the people, since I've freed someone up). Same for most other people around me, from what I see (1/4 or 1/5 seem to need help or prefer talking to the cashier). It's a net win for society in the long run - And I think that employment changes are very liquid in this industry, so I am not as concerned as if it were a coal miner for example.

(My concern is more that supermarket workers probably correlate strongly with hand-to-mouth living, and governments should ensure there are appropriate retraining/growth paths. Which they don't, at least to my satisfaction. Which loops us back to us both pretty much being in agreement, I would guess)

I don't want us to handicap ourselves (tying our bionic arm behind our backs to artificially reduce productivity, in the name of keeping jobs)

> We're focused on B2B software companies

Out of interest, is that a permanent(ish) decision, or are you intending to use that as a spring board, eventually aiming for industry-agnostic?

Thanks

I think it might be worth starting with pure mechanical simple goods, and working from there?

E.g. Specialised bbq tongs might be an easier entry point, allow you to build up the machinery, drills, laser cutters, mould injection equipment, etc. Putting the electronics aspect aside for now will mean you can get things to market now, rather than that extra level of design, QC, legislation etc.

0-to-toaster is a big jump, and we wouldn't attempt a monolithic deliverable like that in software-dev...

> What is your take on inheritance? I understood that you think that it should not be allowed? You called a divine right! Should the gvmt have your assets? If not who?

I think that my inheritance should be a heavily progressively taxed, yes. Divine right is part of it, but I of course acknowledge that people often have 'earnt' the inheritance they receive.

> If you like to pay takes and are looking forward to pay more, there's nothing i can add to convince you.

I don't like it :) But I think it's the right thing. Although - Yes I completely agree that governments are wasteful, and I would endorse anyone that engages in tax evasion and gives the diff to 'charity'. I am also a conscientious observer and struggle with defence spending in particular. In my eye that's really a part of conservative-socialist positioning though, rather than where to get the tax revenue from.

> My original comment on this is related to punishing the savers that accumulated that capital, i can't fathom that.

Completely appreciate that issue yes - My argument essentially is incentivising people to spend their money before they die, and asking them to strike the exact right balance against retaining appropriate emergency funds until then. (Partly why I say progressive tax rather than outright confiscation though, FWIW).

> I think that gvmt's are wasteful and i just don't like to pay high taxes because i had $0 20 years ago. In this particular situation its even worse because it's double taxation.

I would rather they took your money from your inheritance, than taking it from your weekly wages. I don't want you to be penalised for working and creating value. I would prefer $0 inheritance tax to $1 inheritance tax... But I would choose inheritance tax over income tax. <-- That's the crux of it really. I'm not pro inheritance tax. I just think it's the best place to take people's money from, the place that least penalises people for good deeds (other than tax revenue through fines. Then I would argue that sales taxes are a better revenue collection method than income tax partly for the same reason. But we still need all of these taxes in place, I would just rebalance to incentivise production amongst other things.).

---

I appreciate you humouring me on this with the principle of charity and the spirit of debate here!

FWIW r/bcba has a monthly job posting, perhaps the mods would allow you post there if you messaged them (or just a standalone post)?

> If I was completely amoral I would say good, those stupid hick anti vaxxers fucked around and found out. But they always take someones grandma with them.

The grandma caveat does not undo the first sentence. The 'but' would need to be 'but I wouldn't have ill will towards someone'.

I genuinely think that this partisan lack of compassion is detrimental to the cause. I'm 'on your side' (well, you would consider me so I suppose. Of course, the reality has nuance) - But I would just prefer that you didn't speak, if it is just blinkered, antagonistic, lacking nuance and weakening the signal-noise ratio.

And I'm sad that you wish death or suffering upon anybody.

> Well, $1m may sound like a lot of money for Netflix to pay for something that wasn’t really used

The title to me sounds analogous to 'I didn't use that piece of code I wrote on the weekend (but I probably learned something from it)'.

If it were 10m, maybe relevant? But hardly to their bottom line.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/reven... ...

Most companies that size (in evolving industries at least) should have 10-100 of those moonshot/R&D/marketing projects on the go. And I'm speaking to the choir here - exactly: surely most readers of thenextweb would be thinking the same here.

Agree.

I think every camera manufacturer should implement auto blur on photos (legislate it). Then an opt-in system unblurs the faces of the people that approve.

(Or just replace the faces with AI random faces instead of blur)

Point being, society has fallen into an opt-out system naturally - But I don't think there is good reason for it to be a necessary thing for the common good. I want privacy, and the tech is there to do it.

Manufacturers are meddling with raw images for proof of non-tampering, and if the horse has bolted there then I want my proposal above folded in at the same level.