This is precisely what lots of countries let you do. The government can file the 'basic' no fancy claims or deductions filing for you, which covers a lot of people, and if you need to file something more specific or different, you just do it.
Anyone proficient in assembly and C can "see" the assembly that the C code will make, as they write the C code.
What a load of bullshit. Between multiple targets, compilers, and the dozens and dozens of flags and options which affect compiler output, anybody who knows what they're talking about will say never assume anything unless you look at the assembly yourself. This is why sites like https://godbolt.org/ exist. You have to be in an incredibly small, tightly controlled, limited scope environment to really know with certaintly what assembly you'll get out of C code. It's certainly not the attitude of anybody I would consider "proficient". Old, maybe.
Policies that limit pollution. What are you afraid of, economic catastrophe? Mommy telling you what to do?
And "heard somewhere?" rather than policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken but businesses, shockingly, do not want? Take your disingenuous shit somewhere else.
Unless you're doing something truly weird, your CPU isn't spending much time at all on even heavy web browsing. Even the heaviest of web pages are not going to exceed a few % usage of your cpu. A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
This would be a little like Porsche dealerships putting a sign up saying, "No pooping in the middle of the showroom."
You don't need that sign because it wasn't implied to the vast majority of emotionally functional adults that you ever had that privilege in the first place.
"Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information?"
I don't see a lot of people arguing over who decides what cars don't get allowed on the road or what plants we feed to the animals at the zoo or what kind of fuel we put in the airplanes we fly in.
As in, it depends on what the information is, who is saying it, and how they're saying it. All this handwringing about a website going, "Nah, spread that shit somewhere else" is ludicrous in the face of living in a society in which 99.99% of our existence is governed by decisions we don't get a say in.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
You quoted a law of physics, and then speculated that because of this, it would lead to people doing something, without any supporting evidence. Awesomely enough, you finished with an NG quote, because I can't make this up. I certainly don't owe you anything beyond pointing out the axiom of your argument is something you learned as a law of physics which you're attempting to apply to human behavior in ways that don't reflect reality. Reality is far more nuanced - the outcome of any action depends on who is doing what, when, why, etc etc etc, details you seem unprepared or uninterested in taking into account.
In theory and in current and historical practice in free-enough societies, it depends entirely on what the information in question is. Surely your question isn't "what one entity decides what all information is good then?"
Incorrect. You're conflating a law of physics with society and human behavior, an system with an incredibly large number of parameters. I get why people *want* it to be simple, to operate according to simple to define and understand rules, but it's simply not the case in any observable sense.
When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not?
Why would we stop cracking down on stupid, incorrect, dangerous information? As long as it's not the government inhibiting your right to say it, how could you possibly have a problem with public and private entities of society trying to downplay bad information and promote good information? You'd have to be utterly ignorant of history to think good information magically bubbles up simply by inherent quality.
It's because of insurance. No system, company, etc is perfect. Of course banks do stupid shit. But they're insured. It's the social arrangements that make them valuable, not that they're magically filled with perfect people.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe "professional"
This is precisely what lots of countries let you do. The government can file the 'basic' no fancy claims or deductions filing for you, which covers a lot of people, and if you need to file something more specific or different, you just do it.
And yet you choose to trust the people who are influencing the rules designed specifically to limit the choices you have. Incredible.
This happens all the time. I have no idea what the GP is smoking.
Check out the brains on this one!
Hrm. You don't know how taxation works. Interesting.
the more accidents there are
To be this stupid, you really have to put in work.
Only technology can protect us from a fascist majority.
Good lord, what weapons grade stupidity is this?
Is this like how because showering doesn't remove every single piece of dirt and bacteria on your body, you just stopped doing it?
Anyone proficient in assembly and C can "see" the assembly that the C code will make, as they write the C code.
What a load of bullshit. Between multiple targets, compilers, and the dozens and dozens of flags and options which affect compiler output, anybody who knows what they're talking about will say never assume anything unless you look at the assembly yourself. This is why sites like https://godbolt.org/ exist. You have to be in an incredibly small, tightly controlled, limited scope environment to really know with certaintly what assembly you'll get out of C code. It's certainly not the attitude of anybody I would consider "proficient". Old, maybe.
I love the idea that some people believe all this nonsense.
Archangel doesn't base any of his opinions or understandings on information right in front of his nose. That's kind of his thing.
Policies that limit pollution. What are you afraid of, economic catastrophe? Mommy telling you what to do?
And "heard somewhere?" rather than policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken but businesses, shockingly, do not want? Take your disingenuous shit somewhere else.
Unless you're doing something truly weird, your CPU isn't spending much time at all on even heavy web browsing. Even the heaviest of web pages are not going to exceed a few % usage of your cpu. A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
Life is cruel and a bitch
That's certainly how it seems to dipshits.
You have emotional problems. Everyone around you can see it but you.
Chances you read and know the contents of every contract you agree to: zero.
What's sad is an adult who doesn't know what a public space is.
This would be a little like Porsche dealerships putting a sign up saying, "No pooping in the middle of the showroom."
You don't need that sign because it wasn't implied to the vast majority of emotionally functional adults that you ever had that privilege in the first place.
"Again, who decides what is "dangerous" information?"
I don't see a lot of people arguing over who decides what cars don't get allowed on the road or what plants we feed to the animals at the zoo or what kind of fuel we put in the airplanes we fly in.
As in, it depends on what the information is, who is saying it, and how they're saying it. All this handwringing about a website going, "Nah, spread that shit somewhere else" is ludicrous in the face of living in a society in which 99.99% of our existence is governed by decisions we don't get a say in.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
You quoted a law of physics, and then speculated that because of this, it would lead to people doing something, without any supporting evidence. Awesomely enough, you finished with an NG quote, because I can't make this up. I certainly don't owe you anything beyond pointing out the axiom of your argument is something you learned as a law of physics which you're attempting to apply to human behavior in ways that don't reflect reality. Reality is far more nuanced - the outcome of any action depends on who is doing what, when, why, etc etc etc, details you seem unprepared or uninterested in taking into account.
Who decides what information is good then?
In theory and in current and historical practice in free-enough societies, it depends entirely on what the information in question is. Surely your question isn't "what one entity decides what all information is good then?"
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
Incorrect. You're conflating a law of physics with society and human behavior, an system with an incredibly large number of parameters. I get why people *want* it to be simple, to operate according to simple to define and understand rules, but it's simply not the case in any observable sense.
When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not?
Why would we stop cracking down on stupid, incorrect, dangerous information? As long as it's not the government inhibiting your right to say it, how could you possibly have a problem with public and private entities of society trying to downplay bad information and promote good information? You'd have to be utterly ignorant of history to think good information magically bubbles up simply by inherent quality.
It's because of insurance. No system, company, etc is perfect. Of course banks do stupid shit. But they're insured. It's the social arrangements that make them valuable, not that they're magically filled with perfect people.