kriops

IIRC it’s the same author, and designed this way to farm downloads.

Indeed. Because of the price mechanism they don't have to. Provided that some do, of course.

MacBooks are at least ok+ for every conceivable regular office worker (including programmers) use case. Windows and Linux have their respective strengths, but their main issue is being almost completely unusable in certain use cases.

Most important feature imo: The effective "password" being sent over the wire is essentially some hash(secret, uri). Think about the consequences for phishing!

Every definition that shows up when I search contains some variation of the word "fraud".

I care about my time on battery being cut by 90%. I am in no way above writing GUIs with web tech, but it's very noticably suboptimal for the UX.

ADA unfortunately doesn't have the authority to decide what constitutes a good argument or not. That being said, they do have the authority to enforce rules that exist in spite of the excellent arguments against them.

In what world is cost not a good argument?

In fact, assume cost is not a good argument – then why should it even be legal to compile programs that aren’t universally accessible? It’s always beneficial, and just a matter of cost after all.

Or are you perhaps being completely one-sided and unreasonable?

You can't just assert that it makes sense when answering why it makes sense. If you are right, then the owner is losing out on money by operating a car wash, which by the way is their moral and legal right. If you think you can provide more value with the same space – offer to buy it.

There is a big difference in how the browser treats the information, depending on how you provide it. Secrets in URLs leak more easily.

Property rights. In theory you can use your nuke as much as you'd like. The problem in practice is that it is impossible to use a nuke without negatively affecting other people and /or their property. There's also the question of wether you're challenbging the state's monopoly on violence (i.e., national security) which will never apply to AI. Any AI, including futuristic super-AI's, can not be legitimately challenged with those same arguments. Because they, much like a hammer, are tools.

In conclusion, the nuke analogy is not a valid retort to the hammer analogy. And as a matter of fact, it fails to address the central point, much like your copmment accuses its parent comment of.

If you devalue a currency by 1/10 and everything else is equal, then everything will cost 10/9 more measured in that currency.

The set of models we're discussing haven't.

You were derailing with "reason" for no reason, so I pointed it out. That doesn't mean logic should be applied as some sort of universal standard.

Doesn't need answering. All we need to know is that reason requires logic. LLMs do not employ logic, thus they are not able to reason. They sometimes act as if reasonable by happenstance, but fundamentally they are not.

That’s a strawman if I ever saw one. Apple is morally entitled to licence their products however they’d like, because property rights. If you don’t like it, then nobody is forcing you to give them your business.

How do you suppose one should aggregate the contributions from all the different stakeholders?

I don’t think you can.

Your supposition that they fail to uphold the common good is unsubstantiated (and arguably must be, because it is arguably wrong.).

And arguably a corporation can neither be moral nor immoral, as only its individual stakeholders are moral actors.

Game show idea: Is it a malfunctioning market, or just regulatory capture?

The probability is exactly 0, because the article is vague humbug. As for playing God, that is more or less the definition of having a consciousness.

Can you elaborate on why you describe 10^241 as non-physical? Just because it's too large to describe anything physical?

Anyhow, Aristotle had another take on the problem of universals, and taking his view that every concept abstract or otherwise can only exist as part of our physical world (I'm not a philosopher, and there are variations on both themes that different people subscribe to), then your supposition would be nonsense in itself. Stated as a question: What is your reasoning for preferring a Plato-like model of the world vs. a Aristotle-like one?

(If it needs to be said: This is not a gotcha or anything - your opinion intrigued me, and I'm curious as to your reasoning)

Scandinavian unions are incredibly naive financially speaking, and entirely lack a basic understanding of capital markets on an organizational level - including their relationship with the question of what constitutes fair compensation. They also completely neglect the stakeholder problem when considering compensation models - where arguments such as yours about raising the floor are completely removed from the context of financial realities.

Based on my personal experience with Scandinavian unions (I was an unorganized employee in a chain in which some stores had a push for unionization), these “fact checks” should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The math often aint mathin. More often than not they were comparing apples and lemons to come out “on top”. And the unions and their affiliates are just another breed of politicians – both in terms of trustworthiness and ambitions. Quite often they are also just literally politicians with another hat. The stores that got roped in (every store got to freely chose between the store- and the union-approved compensation models) made a huge fuzz when they lost out on variable compensation sometime later.

Now I didn’t work for Tesla, so the deals might work out differently here, but my point is that your comment is double hearsay, and that unions have every incentive to lie – at the very least by omission.

Try moving file explorer windows with your display set to different refresh rates. “Blur” might be an incorrect description, but it’s how I would describe it at least.

It's like playing in black and white, kind of. But yes 50 FPS is completely fine if you have not gotten used to better. Also helps if the game doesn't rely on high levels of detail (which Skylines, unfortunately, does), so that moving the camera around doesn't just make everything blurry.

Linux and git were examples I was thinking of. He could still have made them, but most of their value relies on interactions with commercial offerings. Not to mention technology financed on the back of taxed profits. And their availability to regular people (notice how I talked about "making technology available at scale") would be diminished beyond belief.

But yes, people make the most incerdible stuff without being paid to do so.

"(...) nursery rhyme (...)" is a nice way of not addressing what was said. Good for you.

Yes, a lot of discoveries (not "most innovation", but besides the point!) happens at Universities. But so what? Universities are either for-profit themselves, or they are financed through taxes which depends on the profitability of businesses in the economy which they exist in and contribute to. And like a sibling comment pointed out: Researchers are often the ones commercializing a discovery. Moreover, I specifically stated that "[the commercializing actor] makes technology accessible at scale."

Your statement that "the profit motive is used to commercialize rather than innovate" is a half-truth, because the profit motive is very much present once you consider more than the first-order effects.

I 100% agree that commercialization of new techology (again, innovation is a lot more than bleeding-edge research) e.g., search engines, smart phones, the internet, LLMs and AI, is optimally done through some kind of interaction between univiersities and commercial actors – but to the mutual benefit of a spiderweb of stakeholders affiliated with both academia and commercial actors, and not some quasi-altruistic act of sacrifice on the part of the university.

I don't disagree, but I want to expand upon your point in a cautionary direction: Using OIDC/OAuth2 does prevent you from making several classes of rudimentary mistakes, entirely for free. The nonces and whitelists aren't there just to look pretty!

That is just an outright lie. Even most of the open source stuff I'm going to assume you are thinking of could never have existed without adjecent profit-driven ecosystems.

Profit drives innovation, and more importantly makes technology accessible at scale. Do you think most of the world would have access to washing machines (which are of ridiculous utility, especially when you factor in their price with profit margins and all!) if it were not for some schmuck wanting to line his or hers of pocket? Because it would not.

At its heart, capitalism is a (greedy) solution to a planet-scale resource allocation problem, and there are no viable alternatives (give or take some modifications/variations).

Tl;dr: Economics 101.

If a murder is multiple crows, then a union is multiple thugs.

To be clear I don’t mind if some group of people employs collective bargaining as a negotiation strategy, but the described behavior should be swiftly punished with fines, reparations and possibly light prison sentences. Alas, many unions are somehow above the law in matters of harassment.