maxheadroom

>...and the woods that do remain are typically private property.

I've heard that in the states you can own a piece of property but have "no right" to get to it, as it's surrounded by other pieces of private property and, so, you're at the whims of those properties' owners. Is this true?

In Sweden, we have the concept of 'Allemansrätten'[0]; which is to say that 'private property' (in the absolute sense) doesn't exist and you have the freedom to roam, as long as you don't disturb or destroy anything.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden

>The internet is making online discourse more and more important, perhaps online discourse is already more important than oral discourse.

It's an Eternal September[0] problem, though, in the fact that any discourse has effectively been quashed by setting up "us versus them" factions, yeah?

In our bubble (on HN), sure, we can have respectable (or maybe not so much) discourse but we all come not holding our fingers in our ears, stamping our feet because we think 'x' person is in 'y' camp.

You don't see the festering problems that have affected other platforms (yet) and I think it's very telling that we recognise that discourse is important - but we seem to be in the minority (in this sense of openness to exchange).

The problem with YouTube, however, is that discourse hasn't been a principle part of YoutTube for quite some time. Someone makes a video. If we're lucky someone else might make a "My Response To..." video and, if we're luckier, a further response might be made, "My Response to the Response To...".

However, all one needs to do is look at the cesspool that has become YouTube comments and they will see that discourse isn't a fundamentally important principle there (anymore).

The likewise goes with places like Reddit, which has divided itself into "us versus them" camps about almost everything under the sun.

So, I agree that (online) discourse is important - but it seems to be a bygone idea that a select few of us (present company included) are desperately trying to hold on to.

I'm conflicted as to whether that should give me a feeling of hope or an immense sadness.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

>Same reason men serving in the military or working abroad or on oil rigs or in long-haul trucking have children?

I don't see how those two situations equate. One is an impossibility, due to circumstance (e.g.: on the battlefield), and other is the willful knowledge that you want nothing to do with their upbringing because, using the OC's words, "I’d rather be earning a large dollar amount (doing something I enjoy) than child-rearing...".

Edit: In other words, there's no direct implication that everyone in the military, working abroad, or long-haul trucking wants nothing to do with child-raising. I'd imagine the situation is actually the inverse but the economic necessity for that work to be done (to provide a living) is what prevents that.

>That domestic labour ought to be recognized as real labour, and as such, be paid.

Who would do the paying in this scenario? The children? Aren't they (the children) ultimately the beneficiaries of the aforementioned labour - in the same regard as an employer is the beneficiary of an employee's labour?

I don't understand how that premise would work-out - unless you had a system, like the social security system in the states, where the current generations are paying for the prior; however, even as that system demonstrates, it would eventually become insolvent as the population growth continues unabated.

>I’d rather be earning a large dollar amount (doing something I enjoy) than child-rearing, even if I had to hire a nanny. Just not something I’m interested in doing full time, and life is too short to do things you don’t want to do if you have the means.

I apologise if this infers offence but the way that this reads is that you're not interested in child-rearing so one must ask the question that begs: "Is there a point in having children if you've no interest in their upbringing?"

>I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.

Where is this assumption coming from that I am suggesting international pressure to divide a country? To stop deforestation of Amazon Rainforest? Sure. However, there's a vast berth between that and dividing a country and the former doesn't automatically equate to the latter, yeah?

>We have a separate foundational document devoted entirely to that right.

If you're referring to the Declaration of Independence, that is a legal document[0] that doesn't enshrine rights - even if we're to posit that it did, it speaks specifically about the colonies and the United Kingdom (Great Britain), so there's nothing to extend those principles to any other government entity.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I...

>...where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and northern regions, are extremely poor...

People in Recife[0] are poor? O.k., maybe a single city isn't fair. How about Pernambuco[1]? Something like 31% of the entire population of Brasil is below the poverty line[2] and I somehow doubt that that specific one-third of the population only lives throughout the north and northeast.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recife

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pernambuco

[2] - https://archive.fo/sBTbE

>Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed.

Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct?

What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions?

Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise.

Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions?

This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

>...but what’s wrong with increasing the police force/improving non-technological techniques/etc.?

You mean actual work? We can't be having any of that! Plus, think of the <insert some banally unimportant reason here>!

>This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away..

...but the way the U.S. laws are written, it's quite illegal to take up arms against or try to depose/overthrow the United States Government - no matter how totalitarian and authoritarian it might get.

In fact, nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Consitution or the U.S. Code guarantees such right[s].

This is not to mention the reality that the arms controls would make it seem like the citizens are bringing paper swords to gunfights nor how catastrophic those casualties might be.

>Yeah, why are we charging so many innocent people with crimes?

Votes. Prosecutors/Judges/etc. (depending on jurisdictions in the states) in the states are all about votes based on "being tough on crime". They depend on the police to get the people into the system and they take care of the rest.

The staggering amount of people being found innocent[0,1,2] is very telling about how the core righteous retribution drive of the system is damaging: It doesn't really matter who gets served on a platter for 'x' as much as it is that at least that someone is served on a platter.

Seemingly, they would rather put an innocent person up than to not have anyone served-up for judgment for a crime.

[0] - "*...a conservative estimate is that 1 percent of the US prison population, approximately 20,000 people, is falsely convicted." https://archive.fo/mKriP

[1] - https://archive.fo/ImQPL

[2] - https://archive.fo/wqBm3

TL;DR - Someone made a mask of their exact face that you can wear[0]. The article[1] goes into some other things that you could do but doesn't elucidate any more on those things (which, IMHO, is pretty underwhelming).

[0] - https://archive.fo/qmqN7

[1] - https://archive.fo/b41zN

This entirely depends on if the employer is willing to initiate the application for the permit for you to fulfil the role. See the authority on this here (in English for obvious reasons)[0].

Edit: "Authority on this" as in Migrationsverket is the entity that receives the application and ultimately decides to grant/deny it.

[0] - https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/...

På riktigt! :)

>What makes you think someone who can "work in tech or medicine" is somehow EU immigration eligible?

Most of the more restrictive EU countries (e.g.: UK, Ireland, etc.) have barriers to getting immigration stamps, which the most oft way of immigration is through employment and the most labour available to foreigners is either tech or medicine.

For example, in Sweden, a position must be listed as a highly qualified skill, the role must be listed for 20 days (I think it is) - so that EU citizens can be afforded an opportunity before the role is given to an immigrant, and then the employment contract must be agreed upon by the labour union before it can be approved.

You're not getting an employment contract, for example, to work in Burger King in Stockholm because it wouldn't pass the labour market needs test.

So, this is presumably why the OC thinks that medicine and tech make you immigration eligible.

Worthy of note is that tech or medicine are the best ways to get the EU Blue card (the equivalent of the US Greencard); so, the assumption isn't without its merits.

>So the issue is that no other country in the world will take them? Even if we assume that’s true, that’s reason enough to be grateful.

...but you're ignoring the principle that people are flippantly telling them, "If you don't like, just leave!", which is what brought about this discussion in the first place.

It isn't a realistic option when such barriers exist.

>People are literally dying to break into the country for the opportunity that these folks are complaining is inadequate.

This logic doesn't work. People are literally dying to get into the EU and people from the EU emigrate, yeah? If everyone believed in the exceptionalism of their own home country, then no one would leave!

Also, they're probably not complaining about the opportunity as much as other factors, like society (en masse [e.g.: American society, Russian society, Chinese society, etc.]).

...but isn't the answer to the question, "Can the polygraph be used to coerce false confessions from innocent people?" also quite a resounding, "yes"[0]?

Glossing over or attempting to detract from the grossly negative consequences doesn't automatically arrive at the conclusion that it's resultantly a "good" thing.

[0] - https://www.innocenceproject.org/polygraph-tests-contribute-...

Keep in mind, however, that this is not reciprocal: The Federal government can lie to you with impunity.

What is the difference (if any) between companies who nefariously, vehemently, and willfully track users and stalkers (who we classify as criminals) chasing after their obsessions? Why is it legal for the business? Aren't the end-goals pretty much the same in both contexts and the only differentiation in both cases is the fact the adversaries are either a business or an individual?

It's already baking[0,1], so I'm not sure why they include "about to" in the title.

[0] - https://archive.fo/CrVBV

[1] - https://archive.fo/UfS4A

>Hanging out near war zones and sanctioned countries significantly increases the chance that you're committing financial crimes...

Citizens of Ukraine are just "hanging out" in Ukraine? We're still talking about Ukraine being sanctioned because of Crimea, aren't we? Or have you unintentionally broadened the scope of the discussion?

Wouldn't it be more truthful to say that citizens of a country sanctioned and/or that have become war zones are at an increased chanced to do things (however uncolourful) to survive as a direct result of that very same reality?

>They would be doing that to prevent money laundering, trying to stop people going to sanctioned places and transferring money around for the locals at a hefty profit. (in other words, not the opposite of the intent of the law)

Did they forget we have modern inventions, like VPN and airplanes? Localising it to Ukraine (in this context) sounds like they're generally just after the low-hanging fruit (read: the poor who can't afford such things).

>Humans are emotional and social beings, and we do not (nor should we want to) live in a society in which the proceedings of law, when found to be appropriate to remedy some social offense, become the only permitted form of public expression relative to it.

What does the form of public expression hope to achieve if the recourse is adequate? Emotional release? Were it that it was you that was directly wronged, I could understand your subjectivity on the matter; however, being a third-party to whom there is no direct or indirect impact, it makes no sense.

In other words, using your statement, there is some assumed emotional or social end-goal of the behaviour is there not? Isn't that n+1 from the recourse already defined from society? The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all?

>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere, regardless of the legality of his actions.

The OC wasn't about whether it was unreasonable to find him objectionable but whether it was unreasonable to continue the "hate campaign" (apologies for a lack of better turn-of-phrase at the moment).

>I don't know what "woke," is supposed to imply. I'm assuming (from the typical context of such things) that it's supposed to be a glib disparagement of something related to identity politics, which seems odd and inappropriate.

Woke seems to be common parlance for people who have "woken-up" to some perceived injustice and are fighting the good fight, as it were.

An example of how it is apt and applicable is when Beto O'Rourke was continually forced to apologise[0]. In this case, we can draw the parallels by your statement:

>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere...

At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death? That doesn't seem to matter in the case of lot of people previously hated throughout history, correct? So what overall, overaching purpose does it hope to achieve? When in the history of history has it achieved any appreciably good and desired outcomes?

Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue?

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Y-wbhiOGI&t=190

>...isn't something society should shrug off and forgive simply because "people aren't perfect."

...but isn't the recourse that society has agreed-upon the very same lawsuit that is going on? Is this not adequate? Wouldn't it be more "woke" to fix the aforementioned avenue of recourse, if not?

I suspect that if we could figure out how Edward Leedskalnin did it[0], we could probably piece-together if Stonehenge was done the same way.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle#History

None of the Belfast[0] codes are returning as valid; same for the rest of NI.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_postcode_area#Coverage

>The cable companies are a natural monopoly, just like electricity providers et al. It doesn't make sense for two companies to lay two separate sets of cable in the ground.

With all due-respect, electricity companies haven't had to lay separate lines in the states since FERC Order Number 888[0,1] in 1996 I think it was and the EPA 2005[2]. The entire premise has been defunct for over a decade now.

From what I understand, if a line falls under the common carrier utility definition, the owner of the line cannot refuse access to other providers and can only charge a non-discriminatory tax/leasing-fee for use of the line.

I think that this is precisely why we see the back and forth about the common carrier definition with the different regimes of the FTC regarding ISPs and cable providers.

The issue - in the case of the cable companies/ISP providers - isn't regulation of the monopoly but the classification of their business and how the law then affects them. If they do not fall under common carrier utility rules, then the monopoly will always remain because even breaking them up - such as in the case of Ma-Bell - still ensure monopolies in those more localised coverage areas.

Back to the electricity providers: If the argument of utility providers having to lay lines had any merit, you'd still see telephone poles with hundreds of lines on them - originating from both operating and now-defunct providers (the worst be from the defunct providers because there's no maintenance on them) but we don't see this in the states (as far as I'm aware) today, yeah?

[0] - https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/rm95-8-00w....

[1] - https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/land-docs/order888.as...

[2] - https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/042006/M-1.pdf

>...but what could prevent this sort of thing?

If it's on Windows, probably the digital signature[0] of the installer bundle will flag for invalid/unknown signature. For nix you could verify checksums but for Apple, if it's not in the store, I think it's nigh* impossible to do.

[0] - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/packaging/sign-...

This comment makes no sense because the Fourth doesn't apply to data/information that you've surrendered to the DMV and that the DMV owns.

Precisely from the same Wiki article that you linked: "...courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party...".

So, the right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." doesn't apply, here, whatsoever. The reason that the DMV can sell the data is a direct effect of the fact that they own the data that you've surrendered for the privilege of driving.

In order for your reference to have any standing, jurisprudence must first be reversed and that seems a dauntingly monumental and nigh-impossible task.

It doesn't mean or infer that I think it's a "good" thing (hint: I do not) but to simply dismiss it as being protected by the fourth negates the very premise that has already been established that it isn't (as in this case, with the DMV).