You don't get it: policy solutions accrue and build on each other over time. Think of the slow choking off of access to abortions or guns in conservative or liberal states, respectively. From a politician's perspective, slow progress is a feature: if you win the culture war outright you have to find a new moral concern to engage voters with. (I think that's why conservatives are starting to attack porn more now that Roe v. Wade is dead, actually.)

You also underestimate how easy it is to use a VPN. You have to know they're an option, select one, install a program, and pay for it. Good luck to the 90 year old widower trying to figure that out. Further, these activities leave artifacts... a 30 year old who still lives at home may have a snooping mother who paws thru his credit card statements, for instance.

You can't solve political problems with technology. Not for long anyhow. You've got to fight fire with fire. If you believe in first amendment rights, consider supporting organizations that fight for such. Some such organizations are EFF, ACLU, FIRE, or Institute for Justice, but you'll want to check their overall agendas. Better yet, organize politically and raise your voice at state and local levels... if a few mom groups can run around getting libraries to ban books then techno-libertarians and their allies should be able to show up at a few if these town hall meetings as well.

Yes and no. U.S. taxpayers paid $3 billion to have starship put us on the moon this year. By that metric, they're way behind (and holding up the program). It's great to see Starship making progress and I wish them well, but it's not where they contractually agreed to be.

It's fascinating that the governments of Malaysia, China, Australia, and the U.S. were willing to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at finding this airplane long after there was any hope of rescuing survivors. At some point it ceases to be a legitimate inquiry and becomes an obsession born, perhaps, from our collective frustration at not being able to know everything. The big spend is even more astounding when you consider that the basic questions of what happened to MH370 are all basically answered: we know the airliner crashed into the Southern Ocean and didn't, say, land at a secret airfield in Iran. We know that pilot suicide is a very reasonable explanation of who did it and how they did it. We know everybody's dead... So all this money was spent chasing the fine details of the story (and, to be fair, to appease the victim's families). MH370 was the perfect bureaucratic mind-fuck for the modern managerial class. If that's what the perpetrator was going for, he was wildly successful.

This. O'Leary effectively conned Mattel out of millions. Not the best person to consult about executive compensation fairness.

If corporations are incapable of moral reasoning and social conciseness (outside of hollow posturing for PR), then we better find some big leashes to stick on them. A being without a conscience is no better than a savage animal, and modern super-corps seem content to ravage the earth or rend society as they see fit so long as the C suite gets paid.

The article fails to identify any first-timer mistake. It's just suggestions for cautiously finding and approaching a project/community.

Talent is a continuum... not the perfect-or-terrible dichotomy you depict. Talent is actually several continuums, especially in software where there's so much to learn in so many respects on so many scales in so many situations. And developers aren't fixed points: they learn, grow, forget, and relearn--often in the same day! Moreover, software wants to be complex. If you can automate away a heavy, prevasive concern like memory safety then you free talent up to work on making the software better in other, more impactful respects. And the market wants that.... no company is going to restrict itself to the--what?--five guys who write pristine C code and lay off the thousands of others who are chugging along creating successful systems in languages that fix the C/C++ memory management foot gun.

> It should be illegal to lie. Functionally it doesn't work. Most people lie ("How was your weekend?" "Fine"), and even if you don't, most of us speak carelessly enough that our words could be construed as a lie. Attempting to criminalize lying would likely enable the courts to be weaponized for political purposes and/or overwhelm the justice system completely and/or degenerate into a silly charade of everyone prefacing their utterances with "for entertainment only". Simply unworkable.

It doesn't even have to be an explicit plan. As each year passes the corporation looks to see what dials it can twiddle to make more money. It doesn't even have to come from the top... managers in the middle naturally want to make a good showing and prove their worth to the company and/or future recruiters. Incremental steps to increase revenue are inevitable.

Okay, but technical plagiarism is a lower level of moral outage than "real" plagiarism (trying to pass someone else's work off as your own). One's professionally sloppy and the other is an academic "crime".

If we're going to troll, let's mention that Trump also made donations to Hilary's campaign (for Senate). Which makes a lot of sense since he's not really a good Republican. But at that level, donations aren't about ideals, they're about cultivating influence.

But more noise pollution. Drones are whiney littler things. They also have to get past the "concern hump" as the public learns about the various failure mode of this new technology... e.g., drone injures pedestrian, drone injures child, drone causes vehicular accident, drone causes power outage, drone crashes into building and starts fire, etc. Yes, a truck can do all this too, but that's a familiar risk and fear is driven by the unfamiliar.

Profitability is also a concern, but Walmart might see this as a loss leader to get people coming to their app/website instead of Amazon's.

RISC-V will become ubiquitous. You can't slow China down without slowing America down more. Any restrictions will hobble American firms and hand China greater influence and expertise over RISC-V in the long term.

I know your comment was tongue in cheek, but the system doesn't have the speed, resources, and discernment to handle the number of people who would, if technology enabled them, readily stalk their ex'es immediately after a breakup or during a divorce.

As an atheist, I can rattle off many of the faults and problems with religion, but I can see the good parts too. At their best, religious leaders kindle a community and raise the gaze of its members beyond their own immediate desires, spurring them to live morally, sacrifice for others, and prioritize the things that matter in life. I suspect this immeasurably strengthens the social fabric of a society (er, at least when religious identity isn't siezed by power brokers in a larger social upheaval).