1. Musk sends engineers to site and they speak to 'subject matter expert' about possibilities
2. Inflatable Wing assign 30% staff to task, drop production in half. Ship inflatable 'pod'
3. Continued interaction with on-site experts sees 'mini-sub' idea evolve, similar crunch for development and delivery
4. Someone not involved in this interaction who is _not_ a diver (as commonly reported, he's familiar with the caves and relatively local and did some early co-ordination) made some insulting comments.
5. Got insulting comments back.

Musk was in communication with divers and on-site engineers. This was not some 'out of the blue', uninformed decision to turn up with a mini-sub.
The uninformed opinion was the ex-pat cave explorer who wasn't involved in the loop and made some assumptions about Musk's involvement. He made some public comments disparaging Musk, Musk fired back. Neither behaved well, but you're holding Musk to a double standard if you condemn him and not the instigator, and you've got your 'facts' from the 'spin' that sold this story.

See https://mashable.com/2018/07/0... and https://www.teslarati.com/elon... for eg. Try to look for links before his Twitter storm and you'll avoid all the 'journalists' quoting/sourcing each other.

No.

A limit to a right should only exist where the exercise of that right infringes upon someone else's right. The 'right to swing my fist ends with your nose' kind of thing.

If I have rights to freedom of speech or expression, they may be limited by location. I can be asked to leave private property if what I am saying is unwelcome. My use of a megaphone may well amplify my ability to be heard, but is immaterial for determining whether I should be limited in my right or not.

Your use of a gun to defend yourself may be considered to be disproportionate in some jurisdictions because it violates the rights of your opponent (or potentially, bystanders). The gun, itself, while magnifying the effect of your force is not what is causing the limitation, it's the use of excessive force.

In as much as your speech on the internet may be magnified in effect, the right to speak should not be limited for the _potential_ for impact, but by actual impact. If it is illegal to incite a riot, then whether you do it in a crowded theater or via social media should be moot, the crime is the incitement to riot, not the means you used.

In as much as the only reason to limit a right is where the exercise of that right would impinge on the rights of another, then there is an inherent responsibility in the exercise of any right.

Is something 'wrong' if you don't get caught? If it's 'wrong' to hit someone, it doesn't matter how hard I swing.

Yeah, I remember Affleck said the same thing about Gigli.

From what I've read, 'That Dragon, Cancer' isn't a 'game' in the traditional sense of the word. It's using a kind-of-game format to tell a story. A deeply personal, emotionally intense story. Which is awesome, and wonderful and going to get the sort of praise that arty, tough and interesting films get.

And about the same revenue, for many of the same reasons.

I've bought games on the strength of video of actual gameplay. Given the pressure on journalists to produce reviews that don't see them banned from receiving information or invitations, the last bastion of independent reporting is actual users showing actual gameplay.

If your game sales rely on no-one seeing it actually played, I suspect the problem isn't with the reportage.

Most people are poorly informed and concerned with food, rent and family. It's a poor metric to use.

Wire taps were and probably still are abused. Warrantless surveillance by various parties, warrants issued in a 'rubber stamp' process that makes a joke of oversight and it's not just 'national security'. It's self identifying 'good guys' seeing the restrictions of oversight as something to be overcome so that they can catch the 'bad guys'.

It's not just the oversight mechanisms that are broken, there are significant cultural attitudes that need to change - starting with 'good guy' and 'bad guy' thinking.

Proving a negative is hard. There have been investigations that have turned up nothing. That's not proof that nothing exists, but it's raised the bar above your hand wave. Can you provide criticism of the methodology of, for example, Trump's Commission on Voter Fraud?

Unless your implication that there's no cost to such a process is false. Those who oppose voter registration claim that there is an uneven burden placed on some members of society. That may not be the case, but if so, please explain why it's not so.

Alcohol is moot, but your point regarding firearms is fair. My understanding of the reluctance to insist on ID is that voting is such a fundamental right and so necessary for the proper functioning of Democracy that _anything_ that even looks like interfering with the right to vote (such as by making it harder for some to do so) is off-limits. But that seems to apply equally to the right to bear arms which does require ID.

Citizens have rights. Your PC does not. You're also assuming that there is a possible attack in the face of investigations that have shown that there isn't and that the cost imposed by 'patching' doesn't weaken a fundamental right.

But, as I said before, the comparison with ID for firearm purchase is sound and persuasive.

(caveat, I'm not from the US so there's a good chance I'm missing something)

In the 90s I worked for a government department, that apart from anything else, assessed applications for eligibility to support payments for children with illness and disability. Diagnoses of ADD and ADHD had spiked in recent years and we saw a number of papers that were starting to study both the illness and the apparent rise in prevalence.

One factor that was suggested was that there were fewer children leaving school to take up an apprenticeship or learn a trade as blue collar work decreased and was devalued. School curriculums were following suit and there were less shop and practical classes and a greater purely academic load.

Increased numbers of single mothers raising children and a link to male heritability meant that there were increasing numbers of children being raised without access to adult males with ADD from whom to learn coping mechanisms or strategies to take advantage of ADD.

At the time, social changes were seen as the primary reason for the increase in diagnoses. There was some debate as to whether behaviour that had been either expected or even rewarded in the past was being seen as a symptom, today, especially in borderline cases.

All of this predates both mobile phones and the internet.

That the constant demand for attention reduces the ability to think deeply seems well attested. That's different to ADD and related only in as much as it tends to exacerbate the condition.

Your 'duress' is a golden age in history. No other people have had so much, nor lived so well.

You have been raised in a community and a society. By the time you were able to make decisions for yourself you've already benefited directly from things society has provided, like education and medicine and indirectly by living in a country with rule of law and relative peace. These were offered as part of a social contract. part of that contract includes limitations to your absolute freedom - a requirement to abide by the laws of society and to make some kind of contribution to the maintenance and upkeep of some of the very things you've already enjoyed.

If you find that implicit contract something that you disagree with, then what do you propose? Why should society continue to provide you with active and passive benefit if you refuse to accept the obligations that implies? Where is the duress? You can leave and find a society more to your choosing at any point. There are even a few places left where you can leave all society behind. Live without obligation and with total freedom.

I'm really struggling to understand this idea of 'duress'.

Yes.

I'm prepared to accept that a degree of moral flexibility may be acceptable, but this example falls far short.

The legal system deals honestly with thieves, for example.

Being honest to honest people is easy. Maintaining that standard in the face of those who will abuse it is when that is tested.

In the example given of an employer who offers a discount for those who promise not to smoke, trust is being extended. Most will rise to that trust and recognise that their integrity is expected and respected. The morale that that trust generates and the strength it adds to the existing employer/employee relationship can offset a degree of abuse by the dishonest. Most systems can continue to be useful with a degree of parasitism, so even the existence of those who may abuse the system don't, in themselves, eliminate the utility of the trust in the example.

I'm arguing utility because it tends to be a reasonable common denominator.

Co-operation isn't slavery. There exist a spectrum from absolute freedom through the limitations that we negotiate with those we live with to the yoke of tyranny or outright slavery. Your choices, your freedom are constrained by the society in which you live - whether that's explicit in the form of laws, or implicit in the customs and culture, or hidden such as the opportunities that you may or may not access.

The US has some of the best outcomes for medical treatment. For those who can afford it. Some people enjoy the highest standard of living of any other people on the planet or throughout history but for the majority, but a number of measures, the US has significantly poorer outcomes and conditions.

You are kept in line with a lie about economic and social mobility. The US has worse social mobility than other OECD nations, but most of its citizens believe that they too can one day enjoy the sorts of benefits that those at the top enjoy, and so they continue to support a system that has anything but their interests at heart.

Slavery? The US is a master of it. You've a greater percentage of your population in prison than most countries except during civil war (telling, no?). Train enough people to believe they are free already, and you don't even need chains and whips.

Free. Sure, mate. You keep believing that like you've been taught. You've got years of productivity ahead that you're still good for.

Had they been in the US the tragedy would have unfolded in the same way. An experimental treatment that _may_ have offered an extension on life but which cost most of $1.5 million (in one example that I found).

That the NHS cannot and will not cover every treatment should be obvious. Where that line is drawn will always be tragic.

That these are the worst examples you can find either points to a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotion or the shallowness of your argument.

Not everyone is like you.

On top of which, you can still choose to have a service performed privately and medicare will pay a portion of those costs.
And there are a range of private insurance options to cover non-essential services or private choices.

Not perfect, but it seems to work.

Really? The quote's I've read have her calling on her supporters to confront staff members of the current government and to tell them that they aren't welcome.
Nothing about doing same to Republican voters. Nothing about not getting food anywhere or starving.

Can you link to a citation for what seems to be otherwise an exaggeration?

Say what was wrong? Confronting staff members of the government and telling them that they were unwelcome or the straw man you invented.

Ah, not ignorant. Trolling for a 'let's you and him fight'.
Carry on.

Apart from some hand waving, nothing in the article contradicts this statement.

The rest is cherry picking, out of context and exaggeration.

Al Gore was a politician doing his share of exaggeration and simplification, but if this is the standard of your counter arguments, then you are looking for confirmation of a position you already hold. It's an editorial piece, poorly organised, poorly researched and absent even the pretence of balance or impartiality.

*shrug*
I've seen similar patterns of argument in other fields with believers vs science. Cherry pick exceptions and outliers, find some people who have made exaggerated claims that aren't generally held and argue that taints the whole field. Whether a creationist or a climate change denier, the form's the same. 'Skepticism' is fine when it's even handed. When it's a mask for refusing to accept evidence that contradicts a belief it's just denial.

No one should believe what they read on the internet without some due diligence and a critical examination of the material, the presentation and possibly the source and this is unconvincing.

There will always be some people trying to profit from an existing disaster or by convincing you that disaster is coming. You prove nothing by finding such people. How about, instead,

I'd love to find out that anthropocentric climate change is either not changing or is not anthropocentric. It would make life easier and a little more pleasant. I stand to gain nothing by believing and it would make life easier and a little more pleasant to be shown I'm wrong. Being accused, indirectly, of having fallen for a pitch by someone motivated by greed fails to account for both the reluctance to believe and the weight of evidence that has overcome that reluctance. I first saw arguments and evidence for climate change back in the 80s (Dr David Suzuki was the first I can recall). Then it was mostly a topic for academic discussion - there certainly wasn't any money in it.

That raises your profile.

eBay has policies about refunds and the fees associated with them as do other sites. Do it too often and your account is flagged for investigation and/or cancelled.
Having a history of 'no item / bad inventory' interactions with legit buyers makes plausible deniability harder to maintain.

With all that said, the ridiculously overpriced items are easy to spot and may be amateurs or people going for a short run of 'sales'. It would be harder to spot those who do as you suggest - pricing items at the top of the price envelope to reduce real buyers, but not so much as to attract attention like these do. Maybe you'd have the odd legit sale you'd have to decline, but on the whole, I imaging that this would prove more stable in the long run.