Not voting is an act of renouncing your voice and your rights. It’s not a protest. It’s at best complicity with the status quo, and at worst going to support a candidate that will be far far worse for the issues you are “protesting”. You don’t get to complain when you don’t vote. All you get to do is sit down, shut up, and continue your inaction.

Protest voting doesn’t work when the candidate you are protesting is the least worst option. Democrats that will not vote out of principle have been conned as badly as MAGA republicans. End of story.

A lot of comments here suggest people didn’t read the article. It’s pretty clear he intends to increase tarifs, and that would substitute income tax. Hey even MAGAS as demented as trump still gotta fund that war machine somehow.

As for how effective it could be? Well it’s at least interesting, as it will effectively be a 75% consumption tax on manufactured goods as a replacement. This would probably reduce consumption (great), crash manufacturing (bad), and boost white collar sectors (especially finance).

Basically this will negatively impact blue collars, and benefit white collars and the rich. Oh look, the big con continues.

Whataboutism and a straw man in the same sentence. Smells like speed running trolling.

The point, in one sentence:

If you are the product, not the paying customer, then not only is there no incentive to cater to your needs, there exists incentive to make the product worse for you if it means the paying customer extracts more from you.

Users of freemium software are basically nothing more than willing cattle. Housed and fed for free only to be slaughtered.

Maybe people just can’t help themselves? I fear we can’t have a fair and free market if people are so easily manipulated.

I broadly agree with your sentiment, in particular computing equipment that I purchase and ongoing trends in tech (like smart TVs) that are abusive to consumers.

However, I find this argument not terribly persuasive in this particular case. The content of a website isn’t an extension of your property. It is not even public property. Visiting a site is voluntary. You clearly didn’t pay for accessing the site, nor was it subsidized through a social program. So exactly how should content (regardless of how trashy it is) be funded? Statements like “rights” (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) suggest you are espousing libertarian views, but at the same time, you are not expressing willingness to pay for a service privately?

I dunno, it just comes across as demanding a handout. Meanwhile, not visiting websites that don’t meet your vision for how funding content should be done seems like a perfectly simple and reasonable approach to have for this problem.

In a statistical regression model, that would be a variable that encodes a specific individual; although encoding hypothetical (the scientific meaning of that word, not the layperson meaning) attributes of that individual is probably functionally equivalent, more useful, and easier to conduct.

It’s a false flag operation duh. /S

At least a third of the US has abandoned all responsibility for the country and will just spout whatever nonsense to get what they want. Me me me me me. American individualism dialed up to 11, turning into a cancer eating the country inside out.

A lot of American heroes spinning in their graves, watching spoiled babies loot the greatness that was built.

The only way change happens is if the people hold them accountable. Institutions, politicians, will not clean this mess up of their own accord.

Insist on change; insist forcefully if you have to.

Is a corner with an angle of 180 degrees a corner? If yes, then all shapes have infinite corners and infinite edges.

Comparing employees to citizens is absurd.

• Citizens pay taxes and receive services
• Employees provide services and receive money.

The more apt comparison is voting citizens compared to shareholders. They too get a vote.

If it’s such a problem, maybe we just collectively move on to ES or TypeScript nomenclature?

This is what happens when stack overflow is used for training.

As both a scientist, and a carpenter, it’s a bunch of crap.

Most of the time**, judging involves determining the truth, and the critical analysis of the facts of a case.

The scientific method, at its core, is also a truth-seeking exercise, centered on the idea of failing to prove a theory wrong (“fail to reject the null hypothesis”). In lay terms, a successful scientists will proactively trial an idea against one or more opposing ideas. In doing so, a scientist takes the position of competing truths and systematically disproves them, because disproving bad ideas is easy. In a court of law, the same occurs when a piece of evidence is presented to counter an accusation or defense (like an alibi). Therefore, in both science, and in law, verdicts are achieved on the basis of “reasonable doubt”. Perfect proofs do not exist (yes, even in math, because of axioms).

**To be fair, there are different types of courts, with different functions. A supreme court will probably spend no time on examining evidence for example, where as traffic court will spend most of its time on evidence.

imagine their perfect house

No part of “imagining perfection” is found in the scientific method. This is some fictional view of how science actually works. If anything, it’s carpentry that involves “imagining perfection”, where a building plan is “perfection” and “imagining” is the boundary between the plan and the reality of trying to build to specification.

It’s the usual suspects. More proof that tech isn’t inherently good or bad, it’s just bad people that use tech to amplify their awfulness.

“Hard to understand?” Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.

But “hard to understand?” may also satisfy the criteria of “effort to understand”. Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.

It’s a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either

As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.

I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting grammer and vocabulary because being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.

The casting alone is all you need to know to expect an unmitigated disaster.

Yes and no. I’m sure there is an argument to be made that a house can be too big. Bigger houses require more maintenance, cleaning, higher taxes. Downsizing a house is also a retirement strategy.

and whether it’s a game or real life people stop cooperating once they think they are competing for something

Capitalism has a lot of problems, but the “competing” part ain’t it. Competition is the natural order of things, a large reason our biosphere exists and is self-sustainable. In the natural world, species and individuals compete with each other to ensure only the most adapted consume the limited resources efficiently. This is natural selection at play. Collaboration/symbiotism is the exception, virtually exclusively where species do not consume ressources.

In economic theory, competition is an important driver of innovation, and a source of bargaining power for labour.

If you want to expose the flaws of capitalism, I would start with unregulated capitalism, which brings antitrust/uncompetitive practices, worker exploitation (usually also because of uncompetitive hiring practices), and myriad issues around income inequality and equity.