techdmn

You are punching down instead of up. The problem is not children, or parents, but the state trying to enforce restrictions.

As an old man yelling at clouds, I've been hanging onto a car from the 80s. Not only does it have physical controls, the controls are directly attached to the mechanical systems they operate. Currently the door locks are a little sticky (I need to pull the skins and lubricate everything). The electric solenoids can't quite overcome the friction, but with a little extra pressure I can muscle the lock to open or closed.

If the controls were a touchscreen, OR an physical switch that operated the locks electronically, the locks simply wouldn't work at all. I hate all the latency and ignored commands from physical buttons that work through software almost as much as I hate touchscreens.

The empowerment and psychological difference between a world where I /make/ things happen and a world where I /request/ things that may or may not happen feels like it is often overlooked.

I'm not a gambler, but when I consider it I think the worst thing that could happen to me would be to win a substantial but not life-changing amount of money. I think that's where most people get hooked. They get lucky once (or a few times), then get completely sucked in trying to replicate that success.

I would argue the opposite, that having members of government who CANNOT be prosecuted like normal citizens is not compatible with democracy. I would think arguments to the contrary would have to assume other impediments to a properly functioning justice system, such as politically motivated prosecutions, widespread selective enforcement, etc.

They say the fish rots from the head. I think the U.S. has been rewarding lawlessness at the top for quite a while now.

I concur on missing the turn of the century optimism that tech could make a brighter future.

Carriers have also sold customer location data, no search warrant required. Though we can rest assured that the FCC has slapped the carriers' wrists with the utmost seriousness.

And my axe! Let me know if you do. (Also WI)

Two such instances of police using Flock to track current or former romantic partners:

* https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article29105...

* https://www.fox6now.com/news/milwaukee-police-officer-charge...

> but no one wants to use a pay-phone when they have their own mobile!

I have a hobby-level interest in avoiding pervasive surveillance, and have been thinking about ditching my phone more often. Something like no-cell Tuesdays.

What if I have a family emergency? I don't have a desk phone, but I could pay more attention to my work email.

What if my car breaks down? I could use a payphone, except those don't really exist these days. I could walk to the nearest gas station and ask to use their phone, but they would probably think I was crazy.

The other thing payphones used to have (at least here and there) was an attached phone book with Yellow Pages where I could find a tow company. Lets say I do manage to beg access to a phone, how do I know who to call?

Now that everyone carries all these things in their pocket, other systems for handling these problems have atrophied.

To me this suggests that the problem is not cost, but lack of competition, either in production or in pricing. My understanding is that there are sufficient laws to ensure competition, but they are not widely enforced.

I'm sorry that happened.

I agree with everything you've said. To me the next question is: If nobody has a job, who will buy all the robot-produced goods?

I agree with all your points about Trump's actual behavior, and assure you that nobody dislikes him more than I do!

That said, I think "Trump's voters are all assholes" is a talking point NOT of liberal voters, but of the Democratic party, because it conveniently avoids any discussion of policy, particularly where the party and its typical voters may differ.

Trade is a good example. The bipartisan consensus since Clinton has largely been that unfettered trade is good. However, if you work in manufacturing, or are in a labor pool that competes with former manufacturing workers (or workers who might have chosen a career in manufacturing, or mechanical engineering, or processing engineering), then there are certainly some drawbacks to consider.

To be clear: I do not in any way endorse Trump's policy. I am not trying to discount "owning the libs", or violent racism, certainly both motivators for a good chunk of the MAGA camp. I am saying that it is worth considering policy issues that may have convinced people to vote for him. Especially if you separate campaigning from implementation. Trump's foreign policy has been intervention-heavy, but his rhetoric was frequently isolationist.

I wouldn't be so dismissive. With only two choices, you get a lot of variation on both sides. I'm sure some people were motivated by animosity, racism, misogyny. Others were likely motivated by things Trump is willing to say out loud: Our trade policies are hurting average Americans. Our oversea imperialism does not benefit average Americans. We need to "drain the swamp". Of course his policies actively make all those problems worse, and could generally be described as an unmitigated disaster, but the pitch was compelling to at least some set of his voters.

Completely agree. Trump is selling the wrong solutions, but many people hear a truth when he tells them they are getting screwed. Democrats insist that business as usual is great and simply extort voters: "It votes for a broken healthcare system, a broken electoral system and increasing income inequality or it gets the orange fascist again."

Biden / Harris also essentially offered voters the Trolley Problem. If you don't pull the lever Trump will fund genocide. If you do pull the lever, we will also fund genocide, but maybe less genocide.

If your campaign can be described as an instance of a classic ethical dilemma, maybe the problem isn't the voters? At the very least, if Democrats 2024 campaign rhetoric is to be believed, funding genocide was more important to them than maintaining U.S. democracy.

I identify very strongly with this. More than once in my career I have gotten feedback along the lines of:

> We really like your work! How can you help other engineers be more like you?

The thing I think (but usually don't say) is:

> You realize I'm like this because I often work directly against your instruction in order to satisfy my personal sense of professional pride and responsibility?

How did Voldemort put it? "There is no g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶v̶i̶l̶ law, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."

The law doesn't matter if there is no one to enforce it, or if enforcement is selective, etc.

I've been reading Steve for a long long time. He's had a lot of good ideas, issued some solid advice, but has always had a quirky sense of humor. A few pages into it I thought "this has to be a joke". But I couldn't find the punchline. This is the most depressing comment section I've read in a long time. I might have to enter the lottery to become an apprentice electrician.

Am American, can confirm. I largely disagree with the idea that U.S. citizens chose their government, there are many, many filters, restrictions and unnecessary complications specifically designed to prevent politics having too much influence on policy, and our militarized police force is only too happy to deal with any inconvenient protestors. (Not to mention literal military deployments to several of our cities.) On the other hand, I am routinely amazed at enthusiasm among the public for surveillance, such as the opinion that FLOCK cameras are justified because they might help catch people exceeding the speed limit. Never underestimate the average person's desire to monitor and control other people.

Edit to clarify: I and many Americans are trying hard to be your allies, but it's not clear we have the leverage to be effective. Shit is locked down pretty tight over here.

I read this phrase in a Spiderman comic, probably 1990 +/- 5 years. If memory serves Harry Osborne said it to Peter Parker, something regarding Norman Osborne's activity as the Green Goblin. Anyway, it's one of those phases that immediately etched itself into my brain and replays itself whenever the situation seems appropriate. I've always wondered if the quote had a more respectable original source, but haven't been able to find one.

I have a theory, it would be great if someone would do a rigorous study to back me up! Ha. I'm most likely wrong, but anyway:

The more effort a state puts into surveiling its population, the more effort law enforcement will put into suppressing dissent, and less into addressing crimes targeting the general populous.

If only there was a party on the ballot that supported universal healthcare. (I know there are third-parties that do, but they are pretty effectively excluded from the process.)

It was set up the way it was because the founders didn't trust voters. Voters don't always make optimal choices. Nobody said democracy was perfect. It's just a lot better than every other system we've ever tried. Benevolent dictatorship is good in theory, but quite rare in practice.

Hate to break it to you, you're on social media right now.

I think the phrase "fair distribution on social level" is doing a lot of work in this comment. Do you consider this to be a common occurrence, or something our existing social structures do competently?

I see quite the opposite, and have very little hope that reduced reliance on labor will increase the equability of distribution of wealth.

I continue to be of the opinion that many of our economic problems could be improved with more competition. (Depending on your definition of "problem" of course. The current state of affairs is fantastically profitable some.)

I've been working in this direction as well. I treat it like a game. Sure I /could/ just order thing off the internet, but if it were a scavenger hunt, where could I find thing at a locally owned business and pay cash?

Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard, sometimes I give up and order it online. But the more people do this the more it will (continue to) be a supported use-case.

I've had some interesting conversations, interacting with people in the real world, just by going into a store and telling them I'm trying to find a thing. I tell them what game I'm playing, they're usually pleased to hear it and happy to help if they can.

I'm curious about a system where capital gains are 100% for the first... I don't know, let's say a month. Then you ramp down over the course of the next year until it matches the regular income tax rate. I'm less concerned about the specific time periods than I am about the idea that it would be beneficial to society to have our financial systems encourage long-term thinking.

I've read / watched a few different stories now, where what happens is the police / ICE assault a protestor, then charge the protestor with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest.

You don't bump them, you attack their fists and clubs with the softer parts of your body.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I think the problem should not be approached as "stop people from doing frivolous things", but rather "government should fund the commons". Of course this doesn't make government perfect, but generally it appears to be the most successful way to achieve things like caring for the elderly and disabled, building monuments, protecting wild areas, etc. Turns out we do all these things to some extent, just not as much as some (myself included) might like.

Which is to say, a well run society should have room for BOTH frivolity AND supporting the general welfare of its people. Perhaps our current troubles are the result of many people thinking that supporting the general welfare IS frivolous.