jtbayly

The UI is worse, which is the GP’s claim, and you don’t address that at all?

It is not at all clear to me that taxing land equals taxing the rent seeking portion of the economy.

I don’t understand why the sites I’ve already set up with TOTP are trying to force passkeys down my throat, using dark patterns to try to trick me into it, and making me click extra times just to log in!

Makes me think there is some sort of conspiracy, even if this is reasonably argued and seems true.

CC companies allow this surcharge/discount for CC/cash now. Have for several years. I think it was caused by a class action suit.

Wrong. 12GB is potentially 9.4% of your disk. At the very least, the original M1 MacBook Air (perhaps others) could be purchased with 128GB of storage.

“Siri” has existed for a long time, yes. Apple Intelligence, not so much. It really is just an arbitrary AI model, since I’ve had Siri for a decade and not needed whatever this extra 13GB model is.

My family was driving this road south from Ouray to Durango one morning when I was about 20. We got stuck in a traffic jam. Eventually we made it to the place where a car had gone over the edge the night before, and they were trying to winch it up about 1000 feet. Papers and belongings were scattered down the mountainside. It was very sad and sobering. Driving back that night in light rain was terrifying.

Wait until you hear about all the dead people receiving benefits.

But seriously, your assumptions about how the USA works are just wrong. Voting is not handled at the federal level. Citizenship is.

On one of my machines, I don’t know if I could even make it fit. So it’s a no-brainer to not update on that one, if they are going to force an extra 14GB download on me.

Perhaps eventually. I know I’m in a “closed ecosystem,” and that removes a fair bit of choice in a variety of places. But Apple is known to walk bad decisions back at times. This update is an example, with liquid glass. Another recent one was the iCloud private email planned domain change being scrapped.

I cancelled my Spotify subscription when they wouldn’t stop trying to advertise podcasts to me.

Yeah, I’ll wait to update my computers until Apple gives us an actual choice.

It’s actually mentioned in the article.

> even if 90% are cisgendered (I didnt look up the real stat)

The real stat is much higher than 90%, in case you were curious.

Thank you for sticking with me.

I was still at a loss for the answer to how it could take 11k vs 28 years or so. I asked AI. lol

The thing I didn’t realize is the massive difference between 99.999% vs 99.9999% of the speed of light. I took 99.999% to mean "effectively the speed of light.” Relativity is weird.

> Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.

When you say constant 1g acceleration, do you mean acceleration well past the speed of light? I thought we were talking about all speeds less than the speed of light.

So the question becomes where does the 11k come in? It was just wrong?

> “At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.”

So presumably this means 11k years from an earth point of view? But the traveler would still be alive and a very short time would have passed for him?

I’m confused. Is it 11k years to the closest galaxy at the speed of light, or somehow accessible in a human lifetime?

On the contrary, this is very strong steering in a prompt!

Which means no sleep or HDMI yet.

You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior.

They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it says it on the button doesn’t really help, because no reasonable person thinks that a “purchased” license can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. Why doesn’t anybody think that? Because “owning” a license implies you actually control it. But a license you can’t control at all means you own NOTHING! Not even a license. So “buy license" miscommunicates in the same way as “buy.”

The return policies are indeed meant to be used the way you find problematic. You can buy a computer to use while yours is being repaired. Then return it. Employees will instruct you to do this.

Fine, let’s take it for granted that you don’t want to all of it. But the clear implication of saying that people aren’t paying their fair share is that they generally should. So your ideal may not be 0, but it is (even by your own analogy), close to 0. It’s like saying the goal is to end fraud, and you bring up the technicality that actually the cost of ending all fraud is not worth it. Ok, but the ideal is still no fraud, and nobody is confused about the general goal being to get rid of as much of it as we can cost effectively.

So now I’m honestly asking, are you or are you not arguing that the general goal is to end people "not paying their fair share” (which you equate to living outside of the city you work in)?

Also can you please explain why you believe that “fair” is measurable in this way? Can you give another example of something where a common person would use a similar definition of fair? I think that your definition of fair means stores without dynamic pricing are unfair, which seems crazy to me.

No you said, "You'll know they're paying their fair share when the arbitrage actually stops.” It might not have been intentional, but you communicated clearly that people should be charged more until they are unwilling to work inside the city and live outside. Otherwise they are not "paying their fair share.”

Nevertheless, NYC is the only city I’m aware of in the USA that has congestion pricing, and I’m shocked to find that non-residents who work there do not pay income tax to the city. I live in OH and have to pay an income tax to the small city I work in even though I’m not a resident of said city. I thought it was more common.

So what?

You didn’t say they should pay as much as they are willing to pay. You said they should pay.

They are paying!

Your new goal is that nobody can afford to work in the city except residents, but that is an objectively dumb idea, and certainly has nothing to do with a “fair share.”

Oh, I know they are doing fine without me. lol

But if you don’t like what they are doing, vote with your wallet. In this case, there actually are choices, which is nice.

They already pay substantial taxes out of their income to the city they work, in most places. They already are paying for access.

I canceled my subscription and moved to Apple Music