Nah, that's not quite accurate. For the New Testament, you'd need any idiot with 11 idiot friends and one guy pretending to be his friend while actually plotting to kill him.

Yeah, this kind of stuff has been around a long time. I was somewhat active in the early days of Wikipedia, especially 2004-06 or so, and there would be these sorts of arguments all the time.

Back then, you'd have editors asserting that entire major academic subdisciplines didn't exist and try to go on a deletion spree. Thankfully, someone would eventually come along and be like, "Uh, I can cite a couple dozen journals that publish hundreds of pages on this stuff every year."

I've never understood the deletionist argument. It's one of many, many reasons I stopped trying to edit Wikipedia a long time ago. Somehow the world is a better place if we have a page on everyone's favorite episode of some obscure television show, but dare to include some other thing and it's "not notable." Notability is fundamentally broken on Wikipedia (as are a bunch of other things).

But think about it -- Wikipedia is a self-selecting bureaucratic community. The only people who stick around long are people used to arguing about nonsense policies, and thus it becomes self-reinforcing. Things like X aren't "notable" because the policy says they aren't notable, and the policy is arbitrated and modified by people like us, so... well, why not just say, "We don't want X here."

Of course, it's not that simple -- and I don't think most Wikipedia editors are actually trying to censor anything. But lots of important stuff can get caught in this weird feedback loop that "obviously it isn't notable" because, well nothing else like it is notable, because, well, our policies exclude those things, because, well, we designed the policies, because, well, people like us will always tend to write policies like that, but, well, we have to follow the policies.

The thing I've never quite understood is why deleted pages aren't archived. That tells you right away that the deletionist folks are obviously up to no good. Everything else is always archived on Wikipedia, and there are talk page debates that go on and on and on (if you want nerdy flame-worthy entertainment for an entire afternoon, someday go and read the talk page archive for "centrifugal force").

But for some reason we can't archive deleted pages. Why the heck not? Are we afraid that someone might come along again and argue that it shouldn't be deleted? Well, everybody else on Wikipedia argues continuously about sections of articles that have been reworded or links that were added or deleted or whatever -- and these arguments happen repeatedly. But for some reason, deletion is more-or-less final. There doesn't ever seem to be the idea that, "Hey, maybe we don't actually have enough qualified editors to FIND the notable stuff about this topic, and maybe we shouldn't permanently delete everything in case it turns out to have some good information, so people don't have to start over again and write the whole thing up again."

It's all weird. It's a weird place. And deletion policies are probably the most ridiculous thing they have.

As someone who has written Windows drivers I can tell you that this isn't true.

All you need to write basic drivers is a $150 certificate to sign them with. The user will see a warning about "Do you trust $COMPANY?" when installing, but they will install and work fine. It's a good compromise and gives some basic security for modules that operate in the kernel space and were often used by malware writers. It's a lower bar than required to get an app onto iOS, for example, as Microsoft don't check anything. You just need to buy the cert from a vendor who does a few basic checks to see if you are who you claim to be (e.g. name on certificate matches corporate email address/web URL).

You can buy a more expensive type of cert that makes the warnings go away. It involves more detailed checks. You can also get your drivers WHQL certified, but that isn't by any means a requirement for them to work. They just get a nice logo and can be put on Windows Update for automatic download and installation.

And yes, there is a developer mode that lets you use unsigned drivers for testing or your own purposes if you really don't want to pay. It's not a perfect system but it has reduced driver based malware significantly while not placing a particularly large burden on companies like mine that just need to sign a few drivers for their low volume products.

I think it's pronounced "Rape-y Scan".

Can someone explain why websites being targeted don't submit bulk count-notices in response? There is no penalty for that either, other than inviting a lawsuit. Since most of the sites are not in the US and have no assets there they presumably don't care about US lawsuits anyway.

Fortunately they don't have a monopoly in Helsinki, or almost anywhere that has really good public transport. It's pretty much a requirement of the system not sucking.

This is why you should avoid using US based hosts and registrars. Pick one that isn't subject to the DMCA and can ignore takedowns sent to it.

I've had a couple of DMCA takedown messages. Sometimes I just respond with "wrong jurisdiction, dipshit", but sometimes I try to string them along for a while since lawyer time costs them money.

The problem is the amount of planning and control that would be needed. To make smaller areas viable to live in they need really good and really cheap transport links, as well as a minimum set of high quality services. For example, it would require there to be a certain number of local doctor's surgeries so that people don't have to travel far just to see one. That isn't too bad if you have socialized healthcare, but in many places such practices are businesses run for profit and won't want to operate in unprofitable areas.

They are not suggesting getting rid of private vehicles completely, just making public transport so good that no-one really needs them most of the time. And yeah, Finland is one of those countries where people treat public property with respect.

Japan is similar, and it's pointless having a car in Tokyo for many journeys.

Nuh uh! There are also compressed air cars - they only explosively decompress upon tank failure! ;)

At least with batteries, flammability or explosiveness aren't a fundamental requirement of how you're trying to propel the vehicle, just an unfortunate side effect of some variants of the technology (even not all types of li-ions are flammable). There's lots of people who assume that flammability is a consequence of electrical energy density, but that's just not the case. The actual charge/discharge lithium batteries via intercalating into the anode or cathode is more an atomic-scale equivalent of compressing air into a tank, you're having little affect on the substrate flammabilities and you're not even changing their chemical bonding, you're just cramming lithium ions into the space between their atoms. The flammabilty of some types comes from side effects, such as flammable electrolytes or membrane failures leading to lithium metal plating out; these aren't a fundamental aspect of the energy storage process.

Now, li-air, that involves an actual lithium metal electrode, and that is fundamentally flammable. Of course, so is gasoline. I have no doubt that they can reduce fire risks on li-air cells and keep them properly contained to prevent failure propagations. My bigger issues with li-air are its terrible efficiency, lifespan, and cost. I'm certain the latter would come down, and I expect that they can improve the lifespan, but I'm a bit uneasy about how much they can improve its efficiency. Right now, they're as inefficient as a fuel cell. : Who wants to waste three times as much power per mile as is necessary?

It is a non-sequiteur. The energy density of a li-ion battery doesn't even approach the theoretical maximum storage for the element lithium shifting between ionization states. That's hardly the only way this article is terrible, mind you. My head hurt every time they said the word "efficiency", it's like they were using it to mean everything possible except for actual efficiency. And if I read it right - who knows, the article is such a total mess - the researcher isn't talking about reducing battery cost, but increasing longevity. But maybe that was mangled too.

I don't know what the law is like where you live but if someone said that here it would be illegal. They would likely be prosecuted for discrimination, and you could sue them personally too. I really don't see how that is worse than just accepting you can't get some jobs because of your sexuality.

I'd make the comparison with being black. I don't think many black people would agree that simply accepting overt discrimination is better than having laws and a society that supports equality for them, even if they still have to fight from time to time. Unlike you they can't hide the fact that they are black either.