I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post. Or even worse, it also ran LTE LAA and affected your 5 ghz network.
Actually, given the quality of cell service where my parents live, the neighborhood would throw a small parade if it was realized that 5G backpack-sized cell was going in on one of the local light posts. It's absurd to have a dead zone in the middle of a major metropolitan area.
I suspect that the neighborhood did not vote the way the then-current local government liked, back when the last round of cell network deployment went through here. I mean, when you've got a street locally notorious for people not managing to stay on it and a spot where you can in fact achieve liftoff in a car without having to modify it at all, you'd think the area having working, reliable cell service would be a priority...
Aw, no friends with a uterus? Let me help you out a bit here: It isn't fucking reliable. At least, not currently, since 'every 28 days' is very much an oversimplification here. To give you an idea of the scale of how much, since you don't have experience: There are major papers on how to accurately predict the female hormonal cycles that are at most a decade old. (Since I probably am one of the few bio* types here--this isn't a surprise if you are aware that the endocrine system is complex and poorly understood, as we're only starting to have the tools required.)
Those people with a uterus who live in places without 24/7/365 stores tend to be very good at cleaning up body fluids, which is super-helpful when you've gotta murder somebody for being too stupid, as well as improvisation of supplies in emergencies. Odds are they'll generally be very happy to have a 24/7/365 store open up in their area. Note that most carry items that people will need immediately with little to no notice--and which may are liable to spoil unexpectedly or be 'liberated' without asking (or mentioning) by idiots.
Different environments have different rules, and part of being good at social interaction involves being aware of this--you, over in the cube farm, will not be screwing up basic work safety by being expected to check your work email regularly during work. However, if you expect me to be checking my work email regularly during work despite my being in a lab where basic work safety means my email ain't being checked when I'm in there...there will be problems.
Plus, well, if you're in a field where a failure in basic work safety--especially the higher you get--can easily result in body counts and/or pissed-off government agents and/or mass protests? Blowing off safety to socialize is not likely to be good for your career. It might be good for earning yourself long-term infamy, though.
I don't really go out much, and if groceries closed an hour or two earlier, it wouldn't affect me. They should be open an hour or two past normal working hours, but till 10 pm or 24 hours is stupid.
You're a cis-male. It shows. (If you don't get why, ask a friend who has a uterus about late-night mandatory supply runs. Also acceptable: Your parents. Babies often need things immediately and do not care what time it is.)
I've seen at least one grocery store which actually on occasion was where the 24/7 pharmacy was--and all towns above a certain size WILL have at least one of. (It was kind of interesting because usually they're stand-alones, but this one was in a better spot for the impending severe weather so they were the ones to stay open right through--because medical emergencies care about as much as babies do about what time it is.)
Somebody had to put in the hard work to invent and develop those modern conveniences. While I usually don't agree very much with Bill, I do understand and agree with his point--if you're not willing to put in the hard work now so you can get away with being (even more) lazy tomorrow, you're screwed.
I mean, agriculture itself is a product of laziness: "If I put in some hard work now, to produce food right here, I don't have to go looking in a vague hope of finding food!"
I would agree if I'd not gotten to see people demonstrating that working hard does not in fact require they engage their brain--but by the time you get out of school with professional qualifications, you should already have learned to apply proactive laziness and already be working smarter. ("If you put in a bit more effort now in the planning/setup stage, you have lots less work later.")
Of course, it's rude to suggest somebody could improve it even more without giving some idea where you see a spot for improvement--and you certainly shouldn't assume that the process isn't as efficient as it could be if you have no ability to even vaguely indicate what might be done. ("Everything" is an acceptable answer, but shouldn't be heard outside of teaching.)
Some of it also depends on the sort of work you're doing. If you're working in labs--especially ones where accidents have a high chance of getting the hazmat team to visit and landing people in the hospital--then if it's a necessary-during-work social interruption, the major signal is somebody physically goes over. Emails are for things that can wait until you're not busy with work at your bench, especially if there's a chance you're in the room where it's sneakernet-only.
Think through what you just said from the perspective of having to quickly move all those security eggs to a new basket because your old phone, with its SIM card, has been stolen and you are needing to get everything onto your new phone and SIM card--or at least revoke the permissions from the old set, but that usually takes moving them onto the new if you want access ever again. That should get you to what I'm trying to point out: Any solution to the general issue of being able to recover from even merely having the SIM card die is likely to have issues with being too secure--and we're talking about a single security factor that is supposed to let you straight into the accounts, so you need to be able to revoke permissions fast if it gets stolen & if it's your sole means of access you are likely to be up a certain infamous creek without a paddle.
There is such a thing as too secure. It's probably quite safe to say that a permanently and completely bricked system is very secure--and that this is about the only nice thing to be said for it.
This. If Emil has a reason why political opinions 'cannot' be discussed at the workplace, he may bring them forward. His personal, arbitrary, preference cannot be enforced as a social norm.
And you just hit the nail on the head for why political opinions need to not be a factor in the workplace! You don't want employers feeling that you must share their personal, arbitrary preferences--and, to put it bluntly, a lot of people believe that they are on the 'right side of history' without being so and cannot distinguish their 'personal, arbitrary preferences' from facts. (Actually, about the only thing history proves is that you probably should keep anybody who believes they are on the 'right side of history' away from positions of power, because it's as rational a belief as "The voices in my head told me this about the future." Actually, I probably would trust the person listening to the voices in their head more.)
SIM locked would have its own problems--what do you do when a SIM card dies a horrible death? Any solution here would be open to social engineering attacks, or not work very well since I doubt most people know (or wish to need to know) how to back up their SIM cards and even if that worked, that'd still not necessarily block people from just stealing a phone. It'd also likely mean that you'd be having to buy your phones straight from the carrier or one of the carrier's resellers.
Yeah, and it also means I can't log into my phone's apps elsewhere if I want to or need to--I have an Android phone, and I can (and do) have it overlapping with a tablet and will occasionally use an emulator as well. (Nox, if you're wondering.) And I've had phones die abruptly.
So, basically, not only is it requiring you trust them with your login credentials, it's an inherently insecure and too-secure system all at once--somebody can both steal your phone to get access and you will be blocked from doing anything about it because your (physical) phone is required to log in. Usually you've got to work to screw up security this hard...
As somebody who actually is capable of tolerating the idea of other people having belief systems not my own: Some common root. Or Ben Carson is trolling us all. It turns out that once a group realizes you will believe any stupid rumor you hear about what they believe or do, they're going to see just how silly things have to get before you finally realize that you're being lied to and might wanna be properly sceptical of any claims made about any group by complete outsiders.
So, yeah, probably not a good idea to go claiming that the West's information literacy rates (or skills) are too much better than India's, especially since the lies about other groups has been a known problem predating the information age. It might, though, help if there was a deliberate effort to inoculate people who are going pretty abruptly to entering the information age--perhaps have part of their introduction to the internet include making sure they'll meet copypasta tall tales that anybody there will recognize as (highly entertaining) lies.
But sometimes you also have to recognize that there are other issues. In this case the integrity of free software really matters. I take a hard line on it, I'm a strong supporter of the GPL and its principals, even when they meant that software can be used for evil.
If you're of the philosophical view that politics run that deeply--and that even which end of the hardboiled egg you start at is a political choice--then the GPL and its principals are political, and moreover the political ideals that you believe should be supported and prioritized above all others, at least within the FOSS community.
From that perspective, we're in full agreement. I just happen to be against discrimination against people or groups, period, because I view it as simply not morally possible to justify--and that includes discriminating against people for failing to share your political beliefs...which is, roughly, what's behind the idea that you should leave your politics out of your work, because some people are utter shit at recognizing the irony involved in them preaching tolerance while having none for even mild skepticism of their ideology.
.What should be common sense is to treat immigrants and refugees humanely regardless of whether or not they are ultimately allowed entry.
Now that’s just crazy talk.
The feasibility of doing so depends on the ability to process the volume in which they arrive--of course, there is the option of running on a system where, instead of taking the time and effort to review everybody who wants in so they all have a chance, having cut-off and automatically rejecting anybody who arrives after the limit's been hit.
Of course, this could be also dealt with by ensuring ICE has the necessary resources to actually do their job in a timely and humane manner even when they suddenly have the proverbial firehouse turned on them. So in that light, cutting them off from resources (and harassing their employees) is perhaps not the brightest idea.
I never moved the goal posts. You're just not using the same ones. To each their own.
So, basically, you're in no way willing to accept that something can be a solution when it does not involve the state fucking people?
That will happen with any welfare system, because nobody's pulled off the trick of making it sustainable once you've got more people receiving benefits than paying in--nor how to ensure that politicians will care about the system's long-term viability when they can buy themselves votes by increasing the size of the checks. Less people, which we fortunately can get via entirely ethical means (as long as you don't insist on letting the state stick its dick in), is the only option that can work.
I'm not so sure. Go to a museum or a night safari where "no flash photography" is clearly indicated *and* stated verbally by the guide, and you'll still see flashes. Tourists are clueless about their devices.
If they're serious about it, then Airplane mode needs to be set for everyone by the guide, and not merely "properly explained".
Or not allow cell phones on the bus, and offer complementary disposable cameras. I've actually managed to have impressed people because my cameras are generally set to have the flash off--in part because I routinely photograph things that are annoyed by flashes and in part because I actually really don't like what it does to my images. (Part of why I'm a bit iffy on switching to a DSLR is because I want one which handles ambient light only well enough that if the flash died it could take me actual, literal years to find out--and given that I tend to like night photography...)
I already mentioned encouraging reduction in population growth is good. It'll reduce some of the stress on the system as a whole.
The reason the first option isn't viable as a solution is because actually enforcing a reduction/restriction is unethical. There is literally no metric that can fairly determine whose offspring is more/less deserving to be allowed to exist. If it's not enforceable, then it's not a viable solution to the problem.
Don't move the goal posts. What makes something a solution is if it actually works sufficiently, not if you're having to enforce it--and ethics have, in practice, turned out to be the least of the problems with any enforced efforts to cause the population to drop. As it is, the 'passive' method may be a bit overkill, as the people who've been watching it seem to be vastly more worried about if we'll manage to get automation sufficiently into place to maintain our current tech base (never mind a more advanced one) with the workforce we already can anticipate having.
Now, there is a lot of room to argue that our priorities in automating away jobs are lousy--but that is a different problem, and one neither fewer people nor a viable welfare system would address. It doesn't change that we have had much success in lowering the birth rates simply by ensuring that children are generally likely to survive to adulthood--to put it bluntly, women have turned out to be really disinclined to spam babies out of their crotches once it's no longer necessary.
There are only two real solutions, less people or a viable welfare system. Any conscionable society would ignore the first option. While encouraging reduction in population growth might be good, actually restricting it would be dangerous from a moral standpoint. That only leaves the second option. UBI alone may not be enough, or even the best way. But, it's better we work towards a solution before it's needed.
Actually, the first option is already implementing itself, and has been for a while. We're just not quite yet to where we'll be seeing the effects without having to check the parts of the demographic data which actually is predictive of what you can expect for the population--it turns out that while restricting it is harmful (not just from a moral standpoint), it pretty much happens of its own accord as basic sanitation, universal basic education, and (very) basic medical care becomes widely available.
The main reason we've not seen the effects yet on the total population is because we're also getting better at keeping people from dying. In some countries this is already causing problems with there just not being enough people willing/available to care for the elderly...so, um, we might wanna encourage this being a priority for automation. I don't think we necessarily want to have unavoidable neglect be the main cause of death for the elderly, ethically speaking.
Suppose your plan is rate limited to X kbps. Then in one month you are able to download a maximum of X kbps * 86400s/day * 31 days, or 2678400*X kb. For concreteness, lets say your plan is throttled at 9600kbps. That's 25,712,640,000 kb for the month. This hard cap is in no way "unlimited". That's simply math. Most people seem pretty capable of understanding that.
And yet, with the X GB/mo plan, they can charge me through the nose if I go above the limited amount of data, and I may not be able to do very much to prevent it. If my speed is the limiting factor, I don't have to worry about finding my cell bill is suddenly $$$ more--especially if they've stuck me with data-hogging shovelware--and it's Not My Problem since I agreed to be throttled to that amount. In fact, depending on how the contract's written, they would be breaking the contract should my connection's speed not be at least the agreed-on X kbps...
That is a major reason why there's a question of if Cali got the right plan, especially since I'd be beyond amazed if they couldn't get offered an unlimited amount+speed data plan if they asked. Breech of contract cases are pretty serious--even if we're just talking a consumer plan--but if that was what happened? I'd expect them to be really, really emphatic about having made a point of getting a plan that gave them as much data as they might need without throttling. (Though, during a natural disaster, I'd not be too sure that you could rule out the network getting a local congestion problem...)
They paid for an "unlimited" plan. Unlimited means without limit to normal people.
If nothing else ISPs should not be allowed to advertise things with limits as unlimited.
They're advertising the data part as unlimited data, not unlimited speed (in fact, they tend to not specify a speed in the advertising for unlimited plans), and most people seem to be pretty capable of understanding that...though, admittedly, all of my sample has IQs above room temp and this may be a minor source of error.
I suggest you would be better off arguing that there should be standard that net/data plans be sold by the speed as well as the amount of data. That'd also let you know how easy it'd be to go over on a limited data plan, and if you're getting the right plan if you need speed.
The intelligent way for Verizon to handle this would have been to only offer emergency services a higher tier of service which doesn't get throttled, and instead of throttling emergency services which somehow got onto a lesser plan, escalate them to the higher tier of service and bill them accordingly after the fact.
I suspect it'd also be wise for the companies to keep a paper trail for when 'somehow' means 'penny-pinching idiot deliberately opted for the cheaper plan.' It's useful to know, particularly if that person's the one screaming loudest, since the money 'saved' must have gone somewhere...especially if the amount budgeted was for the right plan.
It's worth remembering that Kindle already has had something get poof'd despite being 'sold' to people--ironically enough, it was 1984. (NYT and this site.)
Personally, I'm somewhat fine if the agreement on both sides is that yes, I'm just getting access to a lending library--fee-for-access is not a new model for libraries, having it be a digital one just makes it smoother. I'm just not a fan of DRM meaning I cannot trust that I actually own what I've bought on the understanding that I am being sold the item itself...regardless of if I'm getting a digital or a physical copy. (Breaking DRM and general DRM issues on both differ, and in some cases my preference is more or less set by "Which one can be more easily/successfully jailbroken?")
You missed several significant points, including that this is actually a problem with single-payer--and while race is an artificial concept, there are biological realities underpinning it and those are what makes 'racism' an emergent feature of single-payer systems. When and where they have worked, the population's not genetically diverse--or the groups who provide the diversity are small enough that people don't have to care--and so most everybody is centered around the average and that's essential to making any type of one-size-fits-all work out. The concept of race comes in because, for various reasons, there is not much movement of genes between those particular groups of people--which is how you end up with, among other things, distinctive aspects of appearance and health issues that are more prevalent in one group than another.
To be financially feasible, single-payer has to go with a one-size-fits-all system. The more diverse the group, the less successful one-size-fits-all methods are going to work. The economic realities of single-payer systems make them effectively 'racist,' with this becoming more significant (or at least harder to ignore) as the population gets more and more diverse.
You are, however, accurate about the problems and inefficiencies underlying the government approach to economics--in fact, those same problems have plagued government efforts to 'help,' to the point that any of their efforts actually being helpful as intended would be a remarkable break from established patterns. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" is not something anybody should want to hear.
And, since apparently you missed it the first time around? Let me state what ought to be obvious: I am arguing against single-payer. I'm also not exactly sure how you could confuse 'single-payer is inherently functionally racist (as an unavoidable emergent feature of economic realities)' as an argument for it.
Maybe you oppose a public healthcare option because it would cost too much but you can't deny your argument should be weaker than it is because the gap shouldn't be this insane. Those who do want a public option, you might not find as much opposition from those in a better financial position if you were proposing investment in reducing overall healthcare costs and closing those gaps. A capital investment to help restructure is a different animal than arguing people shouldn't ultimately carry their own weight in the end.
It's not just people in a 'better financial position' who are going to oppose a public option--a lot of the places when/where the traditional approach to it works well, the population's not very diverse and/or the ethnic minorities small and ignorable if screwed over. With a population as diverse as the US has? Acting to reduce overall costs is less likely to do harm to those who cannot do the 'one-size-fits-all' option in treatments--who are most often minorities--which can make insurance ineffective, regardless of whomever is providing it and whatever claims it might make on paper. It also avoids getting a system that has unavoidable inherent racism...which, I would hope, would be generally agreed to be a desirable goal.
The number one driver of high costs in the US is administrative costs. A large part of this is because we have this ludicrously complicated and hodge-podge payment system and shitty medical records systems and scattered insurance system. We (stupidly) don't have the government playing a big role in negotiating prices like every other civilized country. Other important factors are high drug costs, defensive medicine (extra tests/procedures to avoid liability), over use of expensive treatment modalities, wages/staffing, specialization/referrals, and believe it or not branding.
It's not the only place where the administrative costs are the major driver of rising costs--but I wouldn't be certain that having the government playing a big role in negotiating prices is, in fact, going to reduce administrative costs. It's one thing if they push for, say, standardized forms and a simplified payment system; it's another if what they do is their usual habit in the US of adding yet another layer of paperwork.
If the barrier to opening and successfully suing both professionals and hospitals over undesirable
medical outcomes was much higher, then the costs of legal insurance, and the costs of many services
could have been much lower;
My wife is a doctor and I think you overestimate the cost of insurance. Sure it's a problem, particularly in some specialties like OB/GYN and pediatrics. But the amount my wife's practice has to pay for insurance is not as outrageous as you probably think it is. I've seen the numbers and I honestly expected them to be a lot worse. The bigger problem here is that doctors literally have to order tests just to be sure in case of a lawsuit. Usually it's not a thing but on the rare cases where it does come to a lawsuit the first thing any lawyer worth his diploma is going to ask is "why didn't you order this extra test" or "why didn't you consult another specialist". And so the doctors do what they have to do. Ask yourself what you would do it you could be personally sued for malpractice if you didn't have that extra design review for your code?
Any lawyer worth his diploma? Depends on the quality of school he went to, since this would actually be considered rather...sharky behavior if you can't show that there was good reason to have ordered the extra test or consult another specialist. The problem is that there's not quite the necessary selective pressure to get the ambulance chaser contingent out of the pool--it's a known problem that juries can be rather bad at IDing junk science, and will occasionally not even care particularly past "Well somebody needs to pay for this and the defendant has a forest of money trees (even if we do believe the defendant isn't responsible for it)." I can only wonder if they set out to prove the pessimistic proverb about a jury being the twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
These are the kinds of cases that also generate defensive medicine, and sometimes the harm they have done remains even long after the 'science' used to win them has long since been debunked.
So, it's not just that you could be personally sued for malpractice if you didn't have that extra design review for your code--you can be sued for malpractice even if whatever happened was not something code could do, and that extra design review might be necessary to show that you were 'properly' careful to ensure it'd not achieve the impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if your opinion would change if one of those 5g backpack sized cells were mounted outside your home on a light post. Or even worse, it also ran LTE LAA and affected your 5 ghz network.
Actually, given the quality of cell service where my parents live, the neighborhood would throw a small parade if it was realized that 5G backpack-sized cell was going in on one of the local light posts. It's absurd to have a dead zone in the middle of a major metropolitan area.
I suspect that the neighborhood did not vote the way the then-current local government liked, back when the last round of cell network deployment went through here. I mean, when you've got a street locally notorious for people not managing to stay on it and a spot where you can in fact achieve liftoff in a car without having to modify it at all, you'd think the area having working, reliable cell service would be a priority...
Aw, no friends with a uterus? Let me help you out a bit here: It isn't fucking reliable. At least, not currently, since 'every 28 days' is very much an oversimplification here. To give you an idea of the scale of how much, since you don't have experience: There are major papers on how to accurately predict the female hormonal cycles that are at most a decade old. (Since I probably am one of the few bio* types here--this isn't a surprise if you are aware that the endocrine system is complex and poorly understood, as we're only starting to have the tools required.)
Those people with a uterus who live in places without 24/7/365 stores tend to be very good at cleaning up body fluids, which is super-helpful when you've gotta murder somebody for being too stupid, as well as improvisation of supplies in emergencies. Odds are they'll generally be very happy to have a 24/7/365 store open up in their area. Note that most carry items that people will need immediately with little to no notice--and which may are liable to spoil unexpectedly or be 'liberated' without asking (or mentioning) by idiots.
Different environments have different rules, and part of being good at social interaction involves being aware of this--you, over in the cube farm, will not be screwing up basic work safety by being expected to check your work email regularly during work. However, if you expect me to be checking my work email regularly during work despite my being in a lab where basic work safety means my email ain't being checked when I'm in there...there will be problems.
Plus, well, if you're in a field where a failure in basic work safety--especially the higher you get--can easily result in body counts and/or pissed-off government agents and/or mass protests? Blowing off safety to socialize is not likely to be good for your career. It might be good for earning yourself long-term infamy, though.
I don't really go out much, and if groceries closed an hour or two earlier, it wouldn't affect me. They should be open an hour or two past normal working hours, but till 10 pm or 24 hours is stupid.
You're a cis-male. It shows. (If you don't get why, ask a friend who has a uterus about late-night mandatory supply runs. Also acceptable: Your parents. Babies often need things immediately and do not care what time it is.)
I've seen at least one grocery store which actually on occasion was where the 24/7 pharmacy was--and all towns above a certain size WILL have at least one of. (It was kind of interesting because usually they're stand-alones, but this one was in a better spot for the impending severe weather so they were the ones to stay open right through--because medical emergencies care about as much as babies do about what time it is.)
Somebody had to put in the hard work to invent and develop those modern conveniences. While I usually don't agree very much with Bill, I do understand and agree with his point--if you're not willing to put in the hard work now so you can get away with being (even more) lazy tomorrow, you're screwed.
I mean, agriculture itself is a product of laziness: "If I put in some hard work now, to produce food right here, I don't have to go looking in a vague hope of finding food!"
I would agree if I'd not gotten to see people demonstrating that working hard does not in fact require they engage their brain--but by the time you get out of school with professional qualifications, you should already have learned to apply proactive laziness and already be working smarter. ("If you put in a bit more effort now in the planning/setup stage, you have lots less work later.")
Of course, it's rude to suggest somebody could improve it even more without giving some idea where you see a spot for improvement--and you certainly shouldn't assume that the process isn't as efficient as it could be if you have no ability to even vaguely indicate what might be done. ("Everything" is an acceptable answer, but shouldn't be heard outside of teaching.)
Some of it also depends on the sort of work you're doing. If you're working in labs--especially ones where accidents have a high chance of getting the hazmat team to visit and landing people in the hospital--then if it's a necessary-during-work social interruption, the major signal is somebody physically goes over. Emails are for things that can wait until you're not busy with work at your bench, especially if there's a chance you're in the room where it's sneakernet-only.
Think through what you just said from the perspective of having to quickly move all those security eggs to a new basket because your old phone, with its SIM card, has been stolen and you are needing to get everything onto your new phone and SIM card--or at least revoke the permissions from the old set, but that usually takes moving them onto the new if you want access ever again. That should get you to what I'm trying to point out: Any solution to the general issue of being able to recover from even merely having the SIM card die is likely to have issues with being too secure--and we're talking about a single security factor that is supposed to let you straight into the accounts, so you need to be able to revoke permissions fast if it gets stolen & if it's your sole means of access you are likely to be up a certain infamous creek without a paddle.
There is such a thing as too secure. It's probably quite safe to say that a permanently and completely bricked system is very secure--and that this is about the only nice thing to be said for it.
This. If Emil has a reason why political opinions 'cannot' be discussed at the workplace, he may bring them forward. His personal, arbitrary, preference cannot be enforced as a social norm.
And you just hit the nail on the head for why political opinions need to not be a factor in the workplace! You don't want employers feeling that you must share their personal, arbitrary preferences--and, to put it bluntly, a lot of people believe that they are on the 'right side of history' without being so and cannot distinguish their 'personal, arbitrary preferences' from facts. (Actually, about the only thing history proves is that you probably should keep anybody who believes they are on the 'right side of history' away from positions of power, because it's as rational a belief as "The voices in my head told me this about the future." Actually, I probably would trust the person listening to the voices in their head more.)
SIM locked would have its own problems--what do you do when a SIM card dies a horrible death? Any solution here would be open to social engineering attacks, or not work very well since I doubt most people know (or wish to need to know) how to back up their SIM cards and even if that worked, that'd still not necessarily block people from just stealing a phone. It'd also likely mean that you'd be having to buy your phones straight from the carrier or one of the carrier's resellers.
Yeah, and it also means I can't log into my phone's apps elsewhere if I want to or need to--I have an Android phone, and I can (and do) have it overlapping with a tablet and will occasionally use an emulator as well. (Nox, if you're wondering.) And I've had phones die abruptly.
So, basically, not only is it requiring you trust them with your login credentials, it's an inherently insecure and too-secure system all at once--somebody can both steal your phone to get access and you will be blocked from doing anything about it because your (physical) phone is required to log in. Usually you've got to work to screw up security this hard...
As somebody who actually is capable of tolerating the idea of other people having belief systems not my own: Some common root. Or Ben Carson is trolling us all. It turns out that once a group realizes you will believe any stupid rumor you hear about what they believe or do, they're going to see just how silly things have to get before you finally realize that you're being lied to and might wanna be properly sceptical of any claims made about any group by complete outsiders.
So, yeah, probably not a good idea to go claiming that the West's information literacy rates (or skills) are too much better than India's, especially since the lies about other groups has been a known problem predating the information age. It might, though, help if there was a deliberate effort to inoculate people who are going pretty abruptly to entering the information age--perhaps have part of their introduction to the internet include making sure they'll meet copypasta tall tales that anybody there will recognize as (highly entertaining) lies.
But sometimes you also have to recognize that there are other issues. In this case the integrity of free software really matters. I take a hard line on it, I'm a strong supporter of the GPL and its principals, even when they meant that software can be used for evil.
If you're of the philosophical view that politics run that deeply--and that even which end of the hardboiled egg you start at is a political choice--then the GPL and its principals are political, and moreover the political ideals that you believe should be supported and prioritized above all others, at least within the FOSS community.
From that perspective, we're in full agreement. I just happen to be against discrimination against people or groups, period, because I view it as simply not morally possible to justify--and that includes discriminating against people for failing to share your political beliefs...which is, roughly, what's behind the idea that you should leave your politics out of your work, because some people are utter shit at recognizing the irony involved in them preaching tolerance while having none for even mild skepticism of their ideology.
.What should be common sense is to treat immigrants and refugees humanely regardless of whether or not they are ultimately allowed entry.
Now that’s just crazy talk.
The feasibility of doing so depends on the ability to process the volume in which they arrive--of course, there is the option of running on a system where, instead of taking the time and effort to review everybody who wants in so they all have a chance, having cut-off and automatically rejecting anybody who arrives after the limit's been hit.
Of course, this could be also dealt with by ensuring ICE has the necessary resources to actually do their job in a timely and humane manner even when they suddenly have the proverbial firehouse turned on them. So in that light, cutting them off from resources (and harassing their employees) is perhaps not the brightest idea.
I never moved the goal posts. You're just not using the same ones. To each their own.
So, basically, you're in no way willing to accept that something can be a solution when it does not involve the state fucking people?
That will happen with any welfare system, because nobody's pulled off the trick of making it sustainable once you've got more people receiving benefits than paying in--nor how to ensure that politicians will care about the system's long-term viability when they can buy themselves votes by increasing the size of the checks. Less people, which we fortunately can get via entirely ethical means (as long as you don't insist on letting the state stick its dick in), is the only option that can work.
I'm not so sure. Go to a museum or a night safari where "no flash photography" is clearly indicated *and* stated verbally by the guide, and you'll still see flashes. Tourists are clueless about their devices.
If they're serious about it, then Airplane mode needs to be set for everyone by the guide, and not merely "properly explained".
Or not allow cell phones on the bus, and offer complementary disposable cameras. I've actually managed to have impressed people because my cameras are generally set to have the flash off--in part because I routinely photograph things that are annoyed by flashes and in part because I actually really don't like what it does to my images. (Part of why I'm a bit iffy on switching to a DSLR is because I want one which handles ambient light only well enough that if the flash died it could take me actual, literal years to find out--and given that I tend to like night photography...)
I already mentioned encouraging reduction in population growth is good. It'll reduce some of the stress on the system as a whole. The reason the first option isn't viable as a solution is because actually enforcing a reduction/restriction is unethical. There is literally no metric that can fairly determine whose offspring is more/less deserving to be allowed to exist. If it's not enforceable, then it's not a viable solution to the problem.
Don't move the goal posts. What makes something a solution is if it actually works sufficiently, not if you're having to enforce it--and ethics have, in practice, turned out to be the least of the problems with any enforced efforts to cause the population to drop. As it is, the 'passive' method may be a bit overkill, as the people who've been watching it seem to be vastly more worried about if we'll manage to get automation sufficiently into place to maintain our current tech base (never mind a more advanced one) with the workforce we already can anticipate having.
Now, there is a lot of room to argue that our priorities in automating away jobs are lousy--but that is a different problem, and one neither fewer people nor a viable welfare system would address. It doesn't change that we have had much success in lowering the birth rates simply by ensuring that children are generally likely to survive to adulthood--to put it bluntly, women have turned out to be really disinclined to spam babies out of their crotches once it's no longer necessary.
There are only two real solutions, less people or a viable welfare system. Any conscionable society would ignore the first option. While encouraging reduction in population growth might be good, actually restricting it would be dangerous from a moral standpoint. That only leaves the second option. UBI alone may not be enough, or even the best way. But, it's better we work towards a solution before it's needed.
Actually, the first option is already implementing itself, and has been for a while. We're just not quite yet to where we'll be seeing the effects without having to check the parts of the demographic data which actually is predictive of what you can expect for the population--it turns out that while restricting it is harmful (not just from a moral standpoint), it pretty much happens of its own accord as basic sanitation, universal basic education, and (very) basic medical care becomes widely available.
The main reason we've not seen the effects yet on the total population is because we're also getting better at keeping people from dying. In some countries this is already causing problems with there just not being enough people willing/available to care for the elderly...so, um, we might wanna encourage this being a priority for automation. I don't think we necessarily want to have unavoidable neglect be the main cause of death for the elderly, ethically speaking.
Suppose your plan is rate limited to X kbps. Then in one month you are able to download a maximum of X kbps * 86400s/day * 31 days, or 2678400*X kb. For concreteness, lets say your plan is throttled at 9600kbps. That's 25,712,640,000 kb for the month. This hard cap is in no way "unlimited". That's simply math. Most people seem pretty capable of understanding that.
And yet, with the X GB/mo plan, they can charge me through the nose if I go above the limited amount of data, and I may not be able to do very much to prevent it. If my speed is the limiting factor, I don't have to worry about finding my cell bill is suddenly $$$ more--especially if they've stuck me with data-hogging shovelware--and it's Not My Problem since I agreed to be throttled to that amount. In fact, depending on how the contract's written, they would be breaking the contract should my connection's speed not be at least the agreed-on X kbps...
That is a major reason why there's a question of if Cali got the right plan, especially since I'd be beyond amazed if they couldn't get offered an unlimited amount+speed data plan if they asked. Breech of contract cases are pretty serious--even if we're just talking a consumer plan--but if that was what happened? I'd expect them to be really, really emphatic about having made a point of getting a plan that gave them as much data as they might need without throttling. (Though, during a natural disaster, I'd not be too sure that you could rule out the network getting a local congestion problem...)
They paid for an "unlimited" plan. Unlimited means without limit to normal people.
If nothing else ISPs should not be allowed to advertise things with limits as unlimited.
They're advertising the data part as unlimited data, not unlimited speed (in fact, they tend to not specify a speed in the advertising for unlimited plans), and most people seem to be pretty capable of understanding that...though, admittedly, all of my sample has IQs above room temp and this may be a minor source of error.
I suggest you would be better off arguing that there should be standard that net/data plans be sold by the speed as well as the amount of data. That'd also let you know how easy it'd be to go over on a limited data plan, and if you're getting the right plan if you need speed.
The intelligent way for Verizon to handle this would have been to only offer emergency services a higher tier of service which doesn't get throttled, and instead of throttling emergency services which somehow got onto a lesser plan, escalate them to the higher tier of service and bill them accordingly after the fact.
I suspect it'd also be wise for the companies to keep a paper trail for when 'somehow' means 'penny-pinching idiot deliberately opted for the cheaper plan.' It's useful to know, particularly if that person's the one screaming loudest, since the money 'saved' must have gone somewhere...especially if the amount budgeted was for the right plan.
It's worth remembering that Kindle already has had something get poof'd despite being 'sold' to people--ironically enough, it was 1984. (NYT and this site.)
Oh, and Amazon still may use DRM like this despite having been forced to settle the lawsuit about the disappearing Orwell books.
Personally, I'm somewhat fine if the agreement on both sides is that yes, I'm just getting access to a lending library--fee-for-access is not a new model for libraries, having it be a digital one just makes it smoother. I'm just not a fan of DRM meaning I cannot trust that I actually own what I've bought on the understanding that I am being sold the item itself...regardless of if I'm getting a digital or a physical copy. (Breaking DRM and general DRM issues on both differ, and in some cases my preference is more or less set by "Which one can be more easily/successfully jailbroken?")
You missed several significant points, including that this is actually a problem with single-payer--and while race is an artificial concept, there are biological realities underpinning it and those are what makes 'racism' an emergent feature of single-payer systems. When and where they have worked, the population's not genetically diverse--or the groups who provide the diversity are small enough that people don't have to care--and so most everybody is centered around the average and that's essential to making any type of one-size-fits-all work out. The concept of race comes in because, for various reasons, there is not much movement of genes between those particular groups of people--which is how you end up with, among other things, distinctive aspects of appearance and health issues that are more prevalent in one group than another.
To be financially feasible, single-payer has to go with a one-size-fits-all system. The more diverse the group, the less successful one-size-fits-all methods are going to work. The economic realities of single-payer systems make them effectively 'racist,' with this becoming more significant (or at least harder to ignore) as the population gets more and more diverse.
You are, however, accurate about the problems and inefficiencies underlying the government approach to economics--in fact, those same problems have plagued government efforts to 'help,' to the point that any of their efforts actually being helpful as intended would be a remarkable break from established patterns. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" is not something anybody should want to hear.
And, since apparently you missed it the first time around? Let me state what ought to be obvious: I am arguing against single-payer. I'm also not exactly sure how you could confuse 'single-payer is inherently functionally racist (as an unavoidable emergent feature of economic realities)' as an argument for it.
Maybe you oppose a public healthcare option because it would cost too much but you can't deny your argument should be weaker than it is because the gap shouldn't be this insane. Those who do want a public option, you might not find as much opposition from those in a better financial position if you were proposing investment in reducing overall healthcare costs and closing those gaps. A capital investment to help restructure is a different animal than arguing people shouldn't ultimately carry their own weight in the end.
It's not just people in a 'better financial position' who are going to oppose a public option--a lot of the places when/where the traditional approach to it works well, the population's not very diverse and/or the ethnic minorities small and ignorable if screwed over. With a population as diverse as the US has? Acting to reduce overall costs is less likely to do harm to those who cannot do the 'one-size-fits-all' option in treatments--who are most often minorities--which can make insurance ineffective, regardless of whomever is providing it and whatever claims it might make on paper. It also avoids getting a system that has unavoidable inherent racism...which, I would hope, would be generally agreed to be a desirable goal.
[snip]
The number one driver of high costs in the US is administrative costs. A large part of this is because we have this ludicrously complicated and hodge-podge payment system and shitty medical records systems and scattered insurance system. We (stupidly) don't have the government playing a big role in negotiating prices like every other civilized country. Other important factors are high drug costs, defensive medicine (extra tests/procedures to avoid liability), over use of expensive treatment modalities, wages/staffing, specialization/referrals, and believe it or not branding.
It's not the only place where the administrative costs are the major driver of rising costs--but I wouldn't be certain that having the government playing a big role in negotiating prices is, in fact, going to reduce administrative costs. It's one thing if they push for, say, standardized forms and a simplified payment system; it's another if what they do is their usual habit in the US of adding yet another layer of paperwork.
If the barrier to opening and successfully suing both professionals and hospitals over undesirable medical outcomes was much higher, then the costs of legal insurance, and the costs of many services could have been much lower;
My wife is a doctor and I think you overestimate the cost of insurance. Sure it's a problem, particularly in some specialties like OB/GYN and pediatrics. But the amount my wife's practice has to pay for insurance is not as outrageous as you probably think it is. I've seen the numbers and I honestly expected them to be a lot worse. The bigger problem here is that doctors literally have to order tests just to be sure in case of a lawsuit. Usually it's not a thing but on the rare cases where it does come to a lawsuit the first thing any lawyer worth his diploma is going to ask is "why didn't you order this extra test" or "why didn't you consult another specialist". And so the doctors do what they have to do. Ask yourself what you would do it you could be personally sued for malpractice if you didn't have that extra design review for your code?
Any lawyer worth his diploma? Depends on the quality of school he went to, since this would actually be considered rather...sharky behavior if you can't show that there was good reason to have ordered the extra test or consult another specialist. The problem is that there's not quite the necessary selective pressure to get the ambulance chaser contingent out of the pool--it's a known problem that juries can be rather bad at IDing junk science, and will occasionally not even care particularly past "Well somebody needs to pay for this and the defendant has a forest of money trees (even if we do believe the defendant isn't responsible for it)." I can only wonder if they set out to prove the pessimistic proverb about a jury being the twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
These are the kinds of cases that also generate defensive medicine, and sometimes the harm they have done remains even long after the 'science' used to win them has long since been debunked.
So, it's not just that you could be personally sued for malpractice if you didn't have that extra design review for your code--you can be sued for malpractice even if whatever happened was not something code could do, and that extra design review might be necessary to show that you were 'properly' careful to ensure it'd not achieve the impossible.