This exactly. People pointed this out before the suit was filed, when it was first reported that Trump was banning people.
What was unprecedented was using this company's service as a place to make official statements, when the service allows for unlimited replies from anybody, and puts the person posting in control of who to filter out of the conversation. Well, it turns out that if it is the Government running the account, they won't be allowed to use that filtering feature to remove people based on the content of their speech, and there is little else to filter them based on.
All this comes down to is that a government employee who is using twitter in an official capacity can't use all the features, they can only use the features that are consistent with the government's mandate to be content-neutral towards individual speech. And that was obvious to lawyers the minute Trump said his twitter postings were official statements.
The equivalent feature without a computer would be if a newspaper agreed to publish a statement by the President, and then also to let the President select which letters to the editor the newspaper would publish that talk about the President's statement. That would not be legal for the President. The newspaper's side of it is fine, but the President can't ask for or agree to judge people's speech that way, and if they did make that agreement he'd be required to then approve every single letter.
The same thing happens if the City Council sets a time and place to listen to the public, and then filters out who is allowed to speak based on the content of their past comments. You have to let everybody speak, or limit it to a certain number on a first-come, first-serve basis.
That's called reuse. Recycling is the other business, probably next door or down the street where you see a giant pile of crushed cars that changes every week.
The lithium in the batteries is easy to recover. Old cars will simply trade in their battery packs for refurbished battery packs and the cells will get recycled. It will be way cheaper than a new battery; you'll get a sizeable trade-in. This will result in a table of values for old battery packs.
Very similar actually to ICE cars, where an old car might have an engine that fails in an expensive way an hour after you bought it, or it might not. But when buying used, you look at the service history and how many miles it has had since each major bit of work.
No, Siddhartha explicitly forbid worrying about karma.
It is a complex teaching, and it includes all sorts of incidental details like "doing good" and then it also tells you that those things are incidental and that if you care about them, you lost the thread and that attachment to doing good will bring you suffering.
The whole metaphysics is taught that way; clearly Siddhartha believed in Brahman metaphysics, but he explicitly said that metaphysical understanding is only useful for teaching by metaphor; you're not supposed to take that stuff seriously even if you believe it is really how the Universe is ordered.
It is not skillful to try to do good, it is only skillful to do good out of compassion for others. If you don't have attachment, you don't have any reason to put yourself ahead of others, so it is then the natural state to do good. Actually trying to do good is an attachment that tends to bring suffering to others. That's why there are limited types of good that Buddhist monks tend to do; they only do the good that is there on their path naturally, they're not trying to navigate towards doing good.
(It is very similar to the Christian teaching that if you pray in public, God won't hear you. The difference is that in Buddhism, you're just getting in the way of your own enlightenment.)
Same as other racists, your problem is that you asked "who" instead of "what."
Instead of trying to classify the people, instead the useful question is: What is Russia? And what therefore amounts to Russian control of a non-Russian network resource?
It may turn out to be an issue between nation-states, not an issue between individuals at all. And it may actually be very easy to tell US Government property from Russian Government property!
It is a known fact that you don't have the information needed to determine it is "bullshit."
And you never would have it. And the second part of what you said is therefore the whole part that isn't bullshit; it might be an emergency, in which case the network is fucked.
Since knowledge of the evidence for the concern is classified, you don't know about it; and even if you had a security clearance, we know your job doesn't involve knowledge of these particulars because then you wouldn't be allowed to tell us. So by definition, you can't know it is bullshit; you either have reasons to believe it is a problem, because there is public information about what the danger is in losing control of a network, or you don't fucking know.
I'll give you a hint: If your opinions about network security are based on your domestic politics, you're a fucking idiot.
Why would they leave? If they break it up, the same people own the stock, the same people make the profits.
It just splits up the operations and makes it slightly less efficient, e.g., they spend a little more on labor but are still profitable.
It makes way more sense to imagine a company fighting back when they're being asked to actually change the way they do business, like telling them to limit what they link to on a page, or where they place their sidebars.
The battery is a huge cost! Increasing the battery by 50% is certainly going to increase the price by more than $5k, more than $10k probably. But they don't actually need to increase it by 50%, they need to increase it by 80%. But oops, that's a lot of weight! Then you need a bigger motor, as the existing one is under-sized. You also may need to change other things with that huge a weight jump. You probably need to re-engineer the whole thing.
The whole point of the Model 3 is that it is good enough to replace a regular car for most people, it is not just a city car like the Ioniq. Having city cars that are cheaper won't hurt the sales at all; there were always cheaper short-range vehicles, and they were rarely purchased.
There is a strong consensus on translation to the word "suffering," and it is not in any way problematic because anything that isn't suffering directly can still be translated as something that leads to suffering.
The concepts of "good" and "evil" do not leave it possible for everything to be good. The righteousness of everything, in the context of its nothingness, bears no resemblance to the concept of "good" in "good and evil." It is an entirely different meaning of "good" when it is used to translate that concept. It doesn't make a fair or reasonable translation because it conflates the concept with a different metaphysical concept that contradicts that one! And yet still, you're right that in that passage it gets translated to "good." But it is plainly not the same meaning of good as good and evil; it is more like a good biscuit, or the goodness of being alive. Good and evil is a dichotomy, and people who don't believe in that dichotomy do not believe in that type of goodness.
You can't, it varies from device to device and whichever one they let you play with in a "showroom" isn't the one you'd want to buy because it isn't even new anymore.
You can't even be sure that two devices next to each other on the shelf are from the same factory, much less the same batch, and even if they were from the same batch you can't be sure if the quality control procedures would let them mix displays from different suppliers into the same production run.
Why would you expect unfree elections to need less lies and manipulation than free elections?! That... seems to be missing important details. Like the "free" part.
Most of the time they don't need a lot of lies, instead they just control what the news is allowed to talk about. They don't need to make up fake shit, they just need to filter out the stuff they don't want talked about. But then when an election comes, they want to make sure that the people vote for the correct people; and they sure as hell don't want to have to stuff the ballot boxes, because somebody might make a video and leak it or something! It is much much better to manipulate the debate around the election so that people know which vote is virtuous! And then you can just track who people voted for, and people are going to suspect you're doing that, so they'll be eager to listen carefully to which candidate the official news considers to have the most virtue!
It isn't enough to have a single political party, because you'll still have different factions within the party. Unfree elections require also control of what people talk about during the election, because if you control people's words you control their thoughts also.
Have you seen a factory at night before? Or even seen a factory in a movie at night?
You obviously don't know about Chinese factories. In the US, if you look at an office building and a factory side-by-side, they look totally different.
In China, an office building and a factory are not different buildings. The corporate headquarters is not in a fancy building. It is in the same building as the factory. And it looks like a rundown office building in a poor city in the US! 6 floors, all the same height, with exactly the same rows of windows on every floor. You can't really even tell from the outside which floors are offices, and which floors are factory production.
Just go on banggood and start clicking on shit, you can almost always see a picture of the factory that makes a widget. If they work all night, or they're closed for the day, it will produce about the same amount of light when viewed from above. Very little of the light pollution is coming out of windows; most of it is coming from outdoor lights!
In the US, having the exterior of the building lit up at night helps make the superintendent feel important. In China, the factory owner is also the superintendent, and so doesn't gain value from the building looking important; he gains a feeling of value by making money, same as the owner here. Also, in China having exterior lights pointed at the building would look arrogant and wasteful, and their society has local officials who could punish you for looking arrogant and wasteful. In the US there is nobody to do that; if people complained, it would just be some hippies and the business would laugh at them and add more lights. In China they would perceive looking arrogant as a dangerous and anti-social thing to do, with unclear but real consequences.
Smith assumed that the government and their peers would smack them down, and that nobody would be so vile as to act against their own interests in such a stupid-greedy way.
It was like pointing out that people don't stick their bare hand into the beehive to get a taste of honey.
It turns out, not all governments are capable of self-interest. This was a surprise result. But it changes little of his analysis; it just changes the wording of some things.
Marx starts from quoting Smith's presentation of the basic problem in trade, (self-interest and collusion) but then totally ignores all of Smith's answers and just runs off the rails asserting that the answers have to be as he says, without even considering what if Smith's answer to his setup was legit? People pointing at Marx and claiming it has a bunch of value usually either didn't read it, or didn't bother reading Adam Smith first. You have to read Smith first, because Marx points at Smith's words and mangles the claimed implications.
I agree their reasoning was flawed, but there is still the concern that in authoritarian countries the government might be scheduling the lighting more of the time, and simply not micro-managing it to the same level that would be happening when each business chooses when to turn lights on and off. It may be that in authoritarian countries, there are lots of people who wished they were allowed to use more lighting, especially when they had lots of work and were working late and would have preferred to install flood lights in the yard instead of having to use portable lights.
That said, I find a lot more value in this than most of the commentors, but it is clearly an early result that is made almost entirely of salt.
You'd have to almost completely uneducated... to believe it.
What if you were educated in the Soviet Union and only knew that you were really poor and wanted to move to a rich country, you didn't know about gulags and people disappearing. Maybe you didn't know that half the country was reporting to the government, even about people in their own families, because your family members were doing it and so they never ever would have brought it up and when somebody else did, they said it was propaganda.
What if then you came to the US, and didn't focus on learning about the Soviet Union, because you already escaped; you focused on learning about your new home!
In this situation, simply the openness with which people are allowed to make complaints in the US would already make it look to you as if there are more problems here; but the only thing you actually noticed more of was political discussion!
It reminds me of Chess Grandmaster Lev Alburt, who defected to the west ~1980. He talked about how when he was a child, the propaganda always claimed that the US was ready to invade, and all the kids believed it. And they were eagerly waiting. Him and his friends even drew maps of the local military barracks, and hid them away, waiting to give them to the Americans when they started parachuting down to free them! But alas, it was only propaganda, the Americans never came.
You might want to consider this concept of the "arrow of time."
You propose that stimulus money was given to people after having been taken from other people's pockets.
It is clear from that that you don't even understand the basic concept of stimulus spending, much less the details of how it was done in a particular case. I can also infer that you know what frequency the local conservative AM radio station is on.
Wow, you're sure a needy one, aren't you? You not only insist on a warranty, without even knowing the price the item, and you want to buy it from a chain store, but you even insist on it having a showroom!
Who fucking cares about that shit? What does any of that have to do with what you replied to? They were talking about allowing choice, not ensuring popularity. Yes, yes, I understand; you personally won't buy it unless you think it makes you look cool, and your sense of what is cool is weak and vapid. But who cares? Why would that be on the same subject as what other people are saying they want access to?
When I think of sophistication I naturally start from sophistry, and who could ever beat emacs?! It even used to compile itself by core dumping, but it considered itself too Special for normal compilation.
It even descended from an Ivory Tower, and is maintained by a bunch of people who consider their actions to be not mere programming, but part of a social and political movement! When they cosplay, they dress up as saints. And they'll defend the costumes straight-faced, instead of by appealing to humor.
Some of them even eat foods that commoners would be unwilling to eat. What could be more sophisticated than that?!
Slashdot Mirror
This exactly. People pointed this out before the suit was filed, when it was first reported that Trump was banning people.
What was unprecedented was using this company's service as a place to make official statements, when the service allows for unlimited replies from anybody, and puts the person posting in control of who to filter out of the conversation. Well, it turns out that if it is the Government running the account, they won't be allowed to use that filtering feature to remove people based on the content of their speech, and there is little else to filter them based on.
All this comes down to is that a government employee who is using twitter in an official capacity can't use all the features, they can only use the features that are consistent with the government's mandate to be content-neutral towards individual speech. And that was obvious to lawyers the minute Trump said his twitter postings were official statements.
The equivalent feature without a computer would be if a newspaper agreed to publish a statement by the President, and then also to let the President select which letters to the editor the newspaper would publish that talk about the President's statement. That would not be legal for the President. The newspaper's side of it is fine, but the President can't ask for or agree to judge people's speech that way, and if they did make that agreement he'd be required to then approve every single letter.
The same thing happens if the City Council sets a time and place to listen to the public, and then filters out who is allowed to speak based on the content of their past comments. You have to let everybody speak, or limit it to a certain number on a first-come, first-serve basis.
That's called reuse. Recycling is the other business, probably next door or down the street where you see a giant pile of crushed cars that changes every week.
The only material that can be 100% recovered and reused is aluminum.
You left out the lithium.
Are there lots of other metals? Most of the copper is isolated as wires, it isn't an alloy, so that is easy to recover too.
The lithium in the batteries is easy to recover. Old cars will simply trade in their battery packs for refurbished battery packs and the cells will get recycled. It will be way cheaper than a new battery; you'll get a sizeable trade-in. This will result in a table of values for old battery packs.
Very similar actually to ICE cars, where an old car might have an engine that fails in an expensive way an hour after you bought it, or it might not. But when buying used, you look at the service history and how many miles it has had since each major bit of work.
No, Siddhartha explicitly forbid worrying about karma.
It is a complex teaching, and it includes all sorts of incidental details like "doing good" and then it also tells you that those things are incidental and that if you care about them, you lost the thread and that attachment to doing good will bring you suffering.
The whole metaphysics is taught that way; clearly Siddhartha believed in Brahman metaphysics, but he explicitly said that metaphysical understanding is only useful for teaching by metaphor; you're not supposed to take that stuff seriously even if you believe it is really how the Universe is ordered.
It is not skillful to try to do good, it is only skillful to do good out of compassion for others. If you don't have attachment, you don't have any reason to put yourself ahead of others, so it is then the natural state to do good. Actually trying to do good is an attachment that tends to bring suffering to others. That's why there are limited types of good that Buddhist monks tend to do; they only do the good that is there on their path naturally, they're not trying to navigate towards doing good.
(It is very similar to the Christian teaching that if you pray in public, God won't hear you. The difference is that in Buddhism, you're just getting in the way of your own enlightenment.)
Same as other racists, your problem is that you asked "who" instead of "what."
Instead of trying to classify the people, instead the useful question is: What is Russia? And what therefore amounts to Russian control of a non-Russian network resource?
It may turn out to be an issue between nation-states, not an issue between individuals at all. And it may actually be very easy to tell US Government property from Russian Government property!
It is a known fact that you don't have the information needed to determine it is "bullshit."
And you never would have it. And the second part of what you said is therefore the whole part that isn't bullshit; it might be an emergency, in which case the network is fucked.
Since knowledge of the evidence for the concern is classified, you don't know about it; and even if you had a security clearance, we know your job doesn't involve knowledge of these particulars because then you wouldn't be allowed to tell us. So by definition, you can't know it is bullshit; you either have reasons to believe it is a problem, because there is public information about what the danger is in losing control of a network, or you don't fucking know.
I'll give you a hint: If your opinions about network security are based on your domestic politics, you're a fucking idiot.
Why would they leave? If they break it up, the same people own the stock, the same people make the profits.
It just splits up the operations and makes it slightly less efficient, e.g., they spend a little more on labor but are still profitable.
It makes way more sense to imagine a company fighting back when they're being asked to actually change the way they do business, like telling them to limit what they link to on a page, or where they place their sidebars.
I thought that was the laugh line!
The battery is a huge cost! Increasing the battery by 50% is certainly going to increase the price by more than $5k, more than $10k probably. But they don't actually need to increase it by 50%, they need to increase it by 80%. But oops, that's a lot of weight! Then you need a bigger motor, as the existing one is under-sized. You also may need to change other things with that huge a weight jump. You probably need to re-engineer the whole thing.
The whole point of the Model 3 is that it is good enough to replace a regular car for most people, it is not just a city car like the Ioniq. Having city cars that are cheaper won't hurt the sales at all; there were always cheaper short-range vehicles, and they were rarely purchased.
There is a strong consensus on translation to the word "suffering," and it is not in any way problematic because anything that isn't suffering directly can still be translated as something that leads to suffering.
The concepts of "good" and "evil" do not leave it possible for everything to be good. The righteousness of everything, in the context of its nothingness, bears no resemblance to the concept of "good" in "good and evil." It is an entirely different meaning of "good" when it is used to translate that concept. It doesn't make a fair or reasonable translation because it conflates the concept with a different metaphysical concept that contradicts that one! And yet still, you're right that in that passage it gets translated to "good." But it is plainly not the same meaning of good as good and evil; it is more like a good biscuit, or the goodness of being alive. Good and evil is a dichotomy, and people who don't believe in that dichotomy do not believe in that type of goodness.
You can't, it varies from device to device and whichever one they let you play with in a "showroom" isn't the one you'd want to buy because it isn't even new anymore.
You can't even be sure that two devices next to each other on the shelf are from the same factory, much less the same batch, and even if they were from the same batch you can't be sure if the quality control procedures would let them mix displays from different suppliers into the same production run.
Shorter: Get over yourself
Shut up, Users are a myth. Get back to work and prepare for your timeslice.
Why would you expect unfree elections to need less lies and manipulation than free elections?! That... seems to be missing important details. Like the "free" part.
Most of the time they don't need a lot of lies, instead they just control what the news is allowed to talk about. They don't need to make up fake shit, they just need to filter out the stuff they don't want talked about. But then when an election comes, they want to make sure that the people vote for the correct people; and they sure as hell don't want to have to stuff the ballot boxes, because somebody might make a video and leak it or something! It is much much better to manipulate the debate around the election so that people know which vote is virtuous! And then you can just track who people voted for, and people are going to suspect you're doing that, so they'll be eager to listen carefully to which candidate the official news considers to have the most virtue!
It isn't enough to have a single political party, because you'll still have different factions within the party. Unfree elections require also control of what people talk about during the election, because if you control people's words you control their thoughts also.
We need a 5 year plan to study if we already knew about the honesty of 5 year plans!
China is 2nd world, so comparing 1st or 3rd is perhaps mistaken.
Have you seen a factory at night before? Or even seen a factory in a movie at night?
You obviously don't know about Chinese factories. In the US, if you look at an office building and a factory side-by-side, they look totally different.
In China, an office building and a factory are not different buildings. The corporate headquarters is not in a fancy building. It is in the same building as the factory. And it looks like a rundown office building in a poor city in the US! 6 floors, all the same height, with exactly the same rows of windows on every floor. You can't really even tell from the outside which floors are offices, and which floors are factory production.
Just go on banggood and start clicking on shit, you can almost always see a picture of the factory that makes a widget. If they work all night, or they're closed for the day, it will produce about the same amount of light when viewed from above. Very little of the light pollution is coming out of windows; most of it is coming from outdoor lights!
In the US, having the exterior of the building lit up at night helps make the superintendent feel important. In China, the factory owner is also the superintendent, and so doesn't gain value from the building looking important; he gains a feeling of value by making money, same as the owner here. Also, in China having exterior lights pointed at the building would look arrogant and wasteful, and their society has local officials who could punish you for looking arrogant and wasteful. In the US there is nobody to do that; if people complained, it would just be some hippies and the business would laugh at them and add more lights. In China they would perceive looking arrogant as a dangerous and anti-social thing to do, with unclear but real consequences.
Smith assumed that the government and their peers would smack them down, and that nobody would be so vile as to act against their own interests in such a stupid-greedy way.
It was like pointing out that people don't stick their bare hand into the beehive to get a taste of honey.
It turns out, not all governments are capable of self-interest. This was a surprise result. But it changes little of his analysis; it just changes the wording of some things.
Marx starts from quoting Smith's presentation of the basic problem in trade, (self-interest and collusion) but then totally ignores all of Smith's answers and just runs off the rails asserting that the answers have to be as he says, without even considering what if Smith's answer to his setup was legit? People pointing at Marx and claiming it has a bunch of value usually either didn't read it, or didn't bother reading Adam Smith first. You have to read Smith first, because Marx points at Smith's words and mangles the claimed implications.
I agree their reasoning was flawed, but there is still the concern that in authoritarian countries the government might be scheduling the lighting more of the time, and simply not micro-managing it to the same level that would be happening when each business chooses when to turn lights on and off. It may be that in authoritarian countries, there are lots of people who wished they were allowed to use more lighting, especially when they had lots of work and were working late and would have preferred to install flood lights in the yard instead of having to use portable lights.
That said, I find a lot more value in this than most of the commentors, but it is clearly an early result that is made almost entirely of salt.
You'd have to almost completely uneducated... to believe it.
What if you were educated in the Soviet Union and only knew that you were really poor and wanted to move to a rich country, you didn't know about gulags and people disappearing. Maybe you didn't know that half the country was reporting to the government, even about people in their own families, because your family members were doing it and so they never ever would have brought it up and when somebody else did, they said it was propaganda.
What if then you came to the US, and didn't focus on learning about the Soviet Union, because you already escaped; you focused on learning about your new home!
In this situation, simply the openness with which people are allowed to make complaints in the US would already make it look to you as if there are more problems here; but the only thing you actually noticed more of was political discussion!
It reminds me of Chess Grandmaster Lev Alburt, who defected to the west ~1980. He talked about how when he was a child, the propaganda always claimed that the US was ready to invade, and all the kids believed it. And they were eagerly waiting. Him and his friends even drew maps of the local military barracks, and hid them away, waiting to give them to the Americans when they started parachuting down to free them! But alas, it was only propaganda, the Americans never came.
You concept of cause and effect is sure fucked.
You might want to consider this concept of the "arrow of time."
You propose that stimulus money was given to people after having been taken from other people's pockets.
It is clear from that that you don't even understand the basic concept of stimulus spending, much less the details of how it was done in a particular case. I can also infer that you know what frequency the local conservative AM radio station is on.
Wow, you're sure a needy one, aren't you? You not only insist on a warranty, without even knowing the price the item, and you want to buy it from a chain store, but you even insist on it having a showroom!
Who fucking cares about that shit? What does any of that have to do with what you replied to? They were talking about allowing choice, not ensuring popularity. Yes, yes, I understand; you personally won't buy it unless you think it makes you look cool, and your sense of what is cool is weak and vapid. But who cares? Why would that be on the same subject as what other people are saying they want access to?
It is now! lol
In `99 I used emacs to get a date; I was using it as an IRC client!
When I think of sophistication I naturally start from sophistry, and who could ever beat emacs?! It even used to compile itself by core dumping, but it considered itself too Special for normal compilation.
It even descended from an Ivory Tower, and is maintained by a bunch of people who consider their actions to be not mere programming, but part of a social and political movement! When they cosplay, they dress up as saints. And they'll defend the costumes straight-faced, instead of by appealing to humor.
Some of them even eat foods that commoners would be unwilling to eat. What could be more sophisticated than that?!