Given that x = x.
Then, logically, assuming that x /= x is a mistake, yes? No?

Where x = to use a tool they own as that tool. That tool being a computer.

Installing software on a computer you own is not a wild abandonment of accountability.

Nor is wanting the manufacturer to be held accountable for the product the same as accepting that you do not own it. And it is not the objectivists who jail-break other people's neutered computers, it is the people who buy them.

Here is a clarification of how Randians are the opposite of anarchists,
and here is Louis Rossmann explaining what rights you think you don't have.

If you have a hammer, do you ask the maker what you can use it for? Or do you rely on it working as a hammer?

Yes, but who would use their fork over the original?

If they don't trust him, they can just pull a local copy and use that.
Or at least pin the last known good version.

They don't need to trust him to use his code.

But they do need him if they want his package to infect other systems.

Well, it says in the summary that "there's no evidence of malicious activity", and Hunted Labs have a long list of things this could potentially be used for.

Since Malinochkin himself doesn't seem to have any interest in exploiting this potential, he will have to hire someone who is more amenable. It is open source, yes, but forking fast-glob is not going to help with injecting bugs.

Your mistake is in assuming there is a difference between being able to do what you want and being able to do what you want.

Your Randians (who are the opposite of anarchists, actually) also want guarantees that their guns are fit for purpose, and if they build them themselves, they want guarantees that the material they use is fit for purpose as sold, and if they mine it themselves, they want guarantees that the mining equipment is fit for purpose and so on.

And your garden gnomes don't want to be locked into the walled garden either. The reason why jail-breaking exists is not because someone wants to burn someone else's things. That doesn't even make sense.

There is no difference. And there is no trade-off either: You can have the freedom to use it and the guarantee that it is usable, both at the same time. In fact, you cannot have either without the other.

In most industries, this is obvious and self-evident. To use a car analogy: A car that only drives to selected destinations isn't a car at all.

The same is true of computers, of course.

So in summary, you are wrong about anarchism, you are wrong about the wild west, you are wrong about consumer rights, you are wrong about the arguments for and against sideloading, and you are wrong about who is against it and why.

Are you being paid for misrepresenting the issue so thoroughly, or are you someone's mark?

It will not save any water, but it will make it easier to deny that there ever was water.

Supply them with vital technology?

I couldn't mention everyone. Good example, feel free to add to the list.

Except they were not.

Newton is not acient history. He is firmly modern era. And his theories are still in productive use today. Because he was not wrong.

But even going back as far as actual ancient history, for example Democrit was absolutely correct. And the theories of Archimedes are still in productive use today. Because he, also, was not wrong.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/...

You can develop an intuition for quantum mechanics if you play with it enough. In the same way you develop an intuition for gravity, although maybe not always intentionally. In the same way you develop intuition about anything you develop intuition about.

Our senses are well suited to observing quantum mechanical effects, especially those involving light. We can see light without needing special instruments. (I say although I do wear spectacles.) There is a lot of fun to be had with polarised glasses and mirrors. And lasers! Lasers are fun.

Mathematicians also develop mathematical intuition by playing with mathematical concepts. That kind of insight has led to surprising discoveries.

But, of course, intuition can also be misleading. The proof of the theorem is in the calculating.

TL;DR: Humans can actually understand reality. That's how we have science, in the world in which we actually live.

You mean Great Britain?

I don't see how that is relevant. All islands, private or not, are subject to the law of the land, regardless of how big the nation or nations claiming that land.

Some governments have declared human genetic engineering illegal, others have not. (The government of GB, the UK, seems to have no problem with it.) But the designer babies themselves are always human, and being human isn't banned anywhere.

It was an observable fact in the 1880s whenPaul Lafargue wrote that Capitalists don't want workers to be productive.

He cited how letting workers sleep more than four hours a night by reducing work hours per day led to increases in production just when the markets were getting saturated. The owners reduced the work hours in an attempt to reduce productivity, to maintain scarcity and keep prices from falling too much, but alarminly their policy had the opposite effect.

He went on to say that the universal employment envisioned by the Communists was a horrible idea (for which he was disowned by his father-in-law).

Then there is David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs, which lists some of the ways in which the modern work place is designed to destroy as much productivity as possible.

Of course it has to be on record, but those are rarely published in newspapers.

It is possible to get married and not tell anyone (other than the official and a witness). You can keep a marriage secret from nosy relations.

The point is that it is a personal matter. It is difficult to get married in anything other than person.