We don't need automation to eliminate real work. We don't need UBI to keep real workers afloat. We just need to get rid of billionaires so that the people who actually do real work have something to show for it.

Nice touch. Given the way things are going, I'd be interested to see a F/OSS inspired attempt to build a practical replacement for the broken & corrupt parts of the US government. I don't know how it would work. It would take a lot of dedicated and intelligent people working together effectively, even knowing how badly the odds are stacked. But sitting around hoping that someone else will get it done probably won't end well.

Yeah, I remember that stuff with Microsoft... ! At the time it bugged me more for the security implications than the anti-trust stuff, though I wasn't shy about generally preferring the Linux model back then either.

My gut reaction is the same here - if you've got a system level API that's too dangerous to expose to application developers at large, it seems like the last thing you should be doing is opening it to a web browser, even if it's your own developers working on the browser.

My secondary reaction is that, if you take it as given that the EU has decided Apple is not allowed to have secret APIs they use to make their user-space apps more competitive, then the engineering solution might be to simply wall off those APIs from user-space altogether, rather that risk whatever security problems they are worried about. But again, I'm not a systems level programmer so I'm open to new information here.

Not a systems level programmer, but I've done some app dev; if I'm missing something and a sys programmer wants to clear it up, I'll be glad to know about it.

Typically if I were building an app, there would be a set of core functions that create the underlying data model and necessary rules for the app to work. Then there would be an API layer for "user stories" that defines inputs and outputs for each specific activity that a user would be allowed to execute, and and on the other side of that would be the actual UI. If I found application modeling or rules defined in the UI, or UI stuff in the core, I'd treat it as a bug.

I'm under the impression that the same general idea is supposed apply to the difference between system-level applications and user-space apps. There's bunch of stuff that tho OS needs to be able to do that you definitely do not want apps to be able to access directly. Is that wrong?

Given that the EU is probably trying to ensure a competitive playing field, which they presumably have the right to do in their own country, wouldn't the solution be that Apple's user-space applications should be limited to using the same user space API as every other user-space app? Wouldn't that actually be good practice for Apple's own security goals as well?

Conventional sociopaths aren't capable of holding direct, simultaneous, one on one conversations with thousands of potentially vulnerable people.

Start on an even keel, with a community that rewards relevance (new, competitive economy), some people gain status (wealth) and use that to reshape the environment to their liking, until (billionaires) they get to the point where the can effectively run the whole show in such a way that punishes people for having needs rather than helping them succeed (medical debt, college costs, low wage jobs, etc).

You don't have to feel the same way I do, but I stand by the claim that the analogy is 1:1 on the details I referenced.

I'm a bit confused - is that intended to be analogous to the court's decision, the lawsuit, or just climate change in general?

Looking at the actual article, it appears that German courts would require that someone prove that the damage done is real and that the company being sued is, in fact, responsible for causing it. They threw out the case where this could not be done.

Since your example is intentionally absurd, I'd suggest concluding that it does not closely resemble the process of the German courts. It would be just as easy to assume that this will play out about the same as a rule that if a bunch of companies dump lead in your water supply, and your kid gets lead poisoning, you can (and probably should) make them pay for it.

Yes. In order to have a sane conversation about equity, we would need to be clear about our definitions. That was literally the premise of my original comment. At this point I'm less interested in your "counter-argument" and more concerned that you might not be able to identify and follow a simple thesis.

Someone else said "fairness." Okay. What does that have to do with what I said?

Ugh. Is that really the definition of equity anyone wanted?

Normally I like the idea of equity: specifically, if merit is the idea that we should measure people in terms of their absolute economic value, equity (as I understand it) is the idea that we should help people reach their individual potential. That means that if Jerry needs a wheel chair, Franklin needs a therapist, and Alice needs help affording a healthy dinner, then Jerry should get a wheelchair, Franklin should get a therapist, and Alice should get some help affording a healthy dinner.

It also means that, while I don't think "equal outcomes" is the idea goal, I also don't think that the A+ students should get to make the C- students clean toilets and pay rent for the rest of their lives.

There are costs to the equity approach. Maybe we'd need to be careful about those costs, but maybe it'd be okay if a few billionaires who have 32 houses would have to settle for only having 2 or maybe 3 houses. (You've heard that before, I know.)

While we're dumping on these folks for padding grades, it's worth remembering that even under the "merit" model, there are some folks out there who got padded grades not because they were good students, but because they were on the football team, or part of the right frat, or because any time they brought home a B- mommy would show up at the principal's office and have screaming match about how she was going to sue the school, the teacher, and the teacher's goldfish. I'm exaggerating about the goldfish, but my sister teaches math and the other two are things she does actually have to deal with.

For folks who really want to go down the pure merit path - I disagree with you; I think we should build our society around the idea that everyone should have what they need and want in order to reach their potential for a meaningful life, even if we don't all have the same economic utility, and even if some billionaires end up with fewer toys. Nevertheless, I would prefer to have that disagreement while having an accurate understanding of the what is intended and the trade offs involved. Padding people's grades in order to pretend they are competent has nothing to do with helping anyone overcome obstacles to their potential, and should not be defined as within the bounds of either merit or equity.

Did she actually argue that your understanding was accurate and that the only way to support diversity is to celebrate every single thing every culture does, or is that just your BS? Because it looks like your entire schtick is to intentionally misunderstand intent, and then claim that your misunderstanding proves that you are correct.

One way or another, if Americans want to live in a free country we'll have to make sure an impeachment vote passes asap.

Best explanation I've seen suggests it's a cult style loyalty test. If the plague is just bad luck and we all have to pray because we don't know what else to do, people will only follow you as long as it at least makes them feel better. But if it's that horrible witch, and we burn her at the stake... well, now we find out who's god's children and who's a heretic.

Mechanically speaking, if the goal is for people to experience lives of meaning, joy, and connection, there are ways to do it that are essentially artificial simulations, and ways to do it that are consistent with the evolutionary forces that caused us to crave meaning, joy, and connection in the first place. AKA, "real relationships."

It is not possible to construct a rationalist (falsifiable) argument for preferring one approach to the other: that entire topic falls squarely in the realm of subjective meaning, making it a post-modern rabbit hole at best.

Nevertheless, for those of us who want the real thing - our best bet is to reject further attempts by rent-seekers to push us onto the artificial simulations.