There's actually a Change.org petition demanding Instagram give all users the ability to disable comments "to stop bullying." I've considered finding the user's Instagram and creating several sock puppet accounts, then using them to post content (with comments disabled) bullying the user, with no recourse to defend themselves.

So basically your plan to shut up someone asking for anti-bully feature on Instagram is to give them plenty of examples of bullying conveniently located where Instagram not only sees them but also cannot avoid taking a position.

I can get past libel by just heavily-criticizing them on factual things--like their idiotic demands to restrict people's speech and give them no recourse to comment on images which assault their character.

You're going to get past libel because nobody cares how buthurt a pseudonymous Instagram account is about another such account's feature requests.

Also, they have the recourse of telling Instagram a stalker is making sock puppet accounts for the sole purpose of attacking them. Instagram, not being the government, can then completely ignore how carefully you skirted the edge of law and simply permaban you. Or, if they're feeling nasty, sue you for using their system in breach of the user agreement, which forbids harassment.

But, hey, who knows? Maybe companies forcing good behaviour online for business reasons will end up teaching the next generation to debate without resolting to volume or insults, thus saving our democracies. It's a longshot, but any port in a storm.

You can either have all that, or you can have straight up meritocracy, which Google was famous for in the years past. You can't have both.

Your ability to interact with different people without causing problems - or unintentionally insulting your customers - is part of your merit nowadays. As the world changes, so do the requirements it places on businesses and their employees.

So, speaking time should be determined by genitals?

It shouldn't be. According to the summary it is: "The reporter noted that at iPhone 7 event, women spoke for roughly eight minutes at stage compared to men, who spoke for 99." That is what's being criticized.

Think if you had 250k nand gates to build the control logic for something that can walk, fly, build a nest, explore, gather food, herd other creatures, fight, flee, communicate, follow a trail, cut leaves, balance and carry things, and mate, you could do it?

A neuron isn't an nand gate, not even close. A neuron is a living microprocessor. You're vastly underestimating just how much raw computing power even insects really have.

You'll probably enjoy this ... it shows how SQ3 rendered a frame piece by piece

Interesting... I wonder if this means SQ3's graphics are, theoretically at least, resolution-free? They seem to be some kind of vector graphics, after all.

Hands off means we have to learn how to deal with our world not merely ape what we are told.

It's being told rather than having to learn by yourself which allowed humans to transcend mere instinct and develope culture. Indeed, that's what culture is - a stream of acquired knowledge being passed down to the next generation.

Then there's the concern that the budding civilization might jihad your ass, if they knew about you.

A budding civilization might want to jihad your ass, but how are they're going to do that? You're the interstellar empire and they've barely reached their orbit, if that.

Also, once you are manipulating less advanced creatures, you create the incentive to exploit that relationship. I'm sure there are some directives I could insert on that stone tablet to increase my net worth or future advantages, for example.

Both material and energy are abundant in space, and we're already automating our manufacturing so manpower shouldn't be an issue either. So what form would that exploitation take? The only thing of value I can think of is information - the ideas and cultural memes produced by the unique viewpoint of an alien civilization. Maximizing the production of those seems to entail maximizing both the material wellbeing and freedom of citizens, so it's not at all certain if such exploitation would, in fact, be bad.

Why do you assume they are smarter than us?

If they're spacefaring, they're further along technological development than us, which grants them better communications and computers, which make them effectively smarter. Which, of course, helps them design still better comunications and computers. Universe seems to like exponential growth.

Consumption without production means you're printing money somewhere. That can only lead to inflation and eventual collapse.

Consumption without production leads to prices rising which leads to companies increasing their production capabilities which leads them to hiring more people. You can't run a market economy if you're afraid of prices fluctuating, since it's that fluctuation which guides production.

On p. 14, "Cutting the front trunk first responder loop", it shows how to disable the high voltage. Under the hood there is a coiled loop of red wire with a big bright orange label with a picture of wire cutters. You cut the red wire.

Could this be done automatically, either through an accelerometer or just tying a weight to the wire? It's not like the car is going anywhere anyway after experiencing 200+g's.

Like everything new, it's initially a luxury that few can afford, but it's in society's interest to bring the technology to everyone.

It might be in society's interests to augment everyone, but is it it in the one percent's interests to let the plebs catch up, especially if machines do most work? Our society is not big on common good, after all.

The UK is ~14% of the total GDP of the EU (second largest in the EU): it dropping out without replacing the existing trade deals would be a massive economic blow to the EU.

How much of that is banks and such which will simply leave the UK to stay in the EU?

Governments are pushing socialism more than helping create jobs.

How could a government possibly "help create jobs" without messing with economy in far more involved ways than merely distributing money?

This is a disturbing trend that portends an ever growing underclass that has little opportunity to advance in life.

We have such underclass right now, made of people who capitalism judges to have little economic value. Having internalized the values of the system they're embedded in, they stay relatively peaceful - for now. But it's just a matter of time before either socialism returns in full force or some new ideology comes along and offers them hope of a better tomorrow which capitalism can't.

But even if the economy miraculously recovered overnight capitalism is still doomed for the simple reason that the world - or at least the developed nations - are moving from industrial to information economy, and information is not naturally scarce so property rights are a poor fit to it. Just take a look at how miserably all of Hollywood's bought legislation is failing to enforce copyrights to get a glimpse of the future where even the mightiest of megacorps are rendered impotent by nobody much caring about what they want.

I don't think we should be playing God and deciding who and what species deserve to be around.

Deciding people should die for the sake of preserving mosquitoes is also playing God. Once the possibility exists, you can't avoid deciding.

It is quite probable that nature itself is trying to curb our own population growth in some manner.

The closest this planet has to a nervous system is our society. Nature isn't trying to limit us any more than your body is trying to limit you. Some choices might have less than optimal outcomes, but that's no different from you getting a hangover: it's not that your body is trying to stop you from drinking, it's that it's not working well do to your actions.

If you wish to mystify this, then karma is a better framework than vengeful nature deity.

Imagine how amazing it will be once the first company is able to use a rocket to launch a satellite!

It was a huge step forward, just like the first country launching one was before. We're currently at the point where even our lower aristocracy can afford a trip to space, and seem to be moving towards Joe Average vacationing there in my lifetime.

And then once they have accomplished that, maybe they can go to Mars. Or even better, another star!

Well, yes. That's what we're moving towards. However, it'll probably take a few hundred years to colonize our own solar system and get used to not being planetbound before making a serious effort to venture forward.

But by all means, tell us where you think the virtuous circle of falling launch costs, more people who can afford them, and more money going towards developing space technology and infrastructure further are going to lead?

Welcome to reality. Reality isn't Star Trek.

Mainly because Star Trek needed to cripple its future to keep its main characters and their challenges recognizable to the audience. Thus things like cyborgs, sapient supercomputers and genetic engineering were reserved for enemies. On the other hand, we have little reason to self-limit ourselves to what natural selection came up with, so why would a thousand-year journey be any more of a problem for our descendants than morning commute is for us?