All it takes in our economy is a little grease and rules don't matter. There's an entire class of people that think that as long as Trump is never punished, they can do anything they want.

After all, a pardon is $2M.

What matters is how/if that differs from the status quo. I know slashdot has a hard time reframing the question to anything but software engineering, but an error is not always a "vulnerability." Humans already make many errors and to not make any errors it takes many humans.

You're the one claiming the only meaningful decisions have to have nearly absolute precision. That's what is truly idiotic. What a weird world you must live in where you can only decide with nearly perfect information. What tripe.

Again, this is just nonsense, morally righteous nonsense. There are all kinds of decisions that happen every day for every person that do not require this level of accuracy. Your moral superiority means nothing.

Obviously it depends.

Of course, how stupid of me. The only problems anyone works on already operate in the same tolerance as the space shuttle. Some errors can be absorbed; others are catastrophic, treating them all the same is moronic.

There are plenty of situations in life where 10% error tolerance is more than acceptable.

If you're spending 4 hrs a week on verification but it's correct 90% of the time, maybe you're wasting your time.

CCU on steam is down like 90% since launch. For whatever reason, the players are not sticking even though by and large players seem to appreciate the game.

Again, this definition of "markets = good" does not define an ideology. If the problem is money in politics, that free speech equals money spent, etc. then that's quite a different problem than using market forces to solve problems.

Because what you're describing isn't using market forces to solve problems, it's wealth consolidation - the very opposite of using market forces to solve problems. Corruption by it's very nature isn't using market forces, it's using preferential positions and power to ensure success. It's in fact contrary to the idea of free markets (at least Adam Smith would think so).

>As to what neoliberalism means in practice, take a look at the US as it is now, and do tell me that it's in a healthy place.

This is a tautology. "If the US is unhealthy, then neoliberalism must be bad." I can't see your chart because I don't subscribe to the atlantic. But I do agree, if this is the point, that the wealth consolidation is a big problem. I don't think, however, the definition of neoliberalism you're suggesting is coherent at all. Some policies that use market forces to solve problems are good, and some problems that use market forces to solve problems are bad. Of course not all markets are bad, so which ones are? In fact, the problem you're pointing to has nothing to do with markets - it's precisely the opposite. It's powerful, wealthy people using government to increase their wealth and power.

Like I said, that's a problem of tax policy (and to an extent, regulation and the lack thereof).

A legend in your own mind

The lead is deep in your brain.

I get the sense you're one of these people that complains about globalism while never voting.

It's always funny to me when people point the finger at liberalism (or "neoliberalism" which is just a catch-all for things they don't like.).

No, it isn't liberalism.

It's tax policy.

That's all it is.

Who asked?

"Analyst invested in other companies claims OpenAI is no good."