Just one point: "free love" actually has a historical definition. It means that sexual activity should not be regulated by governments. That would also, technically, include the right to practice celibacy.

They will have to increase the price eventually as demand for transport overall rises. The point of the pricing is to deter driving enough that the street network operates within its capacity limits; if driving becomes more desirable than status quo ante, they aren't charging enough and will have to raise prices to keep demand manageable.

Think of it this way: either way, traffic will reach some equilibrium. The question is, what is the limiting factor? If using the road is free, then the limiting factor is traffic congestion. If you widen some congested streets, the limiting factor is *still* congestion, so eventually a new equilibrium is found which features traffic jams with even more cars.

The only way to build your way out of this limit, is to add *so* much capacity to the street network that it far outstrips any conceivable demand. This works in a number of US cities, but they're small and have an extensive grid-based street network with few natural barriers like rivers. There is simply no way to retrofit such a street architecture into a city of 8.5 million people where land costs six million dollars an acre.

So imposing use fees is really is the only way to alleviate traffic for a major city like New York or London. This raises economic fairness issues, for sure, but if you want fairness, you can have everyone suffer, or you can provide everyone with better transportation alternatives, but not necessarily the same ones. Yes, the wealthy will be subsidizing the poor, but they themselves will also get rewards well worth the price.

At least half the fun of being a 'disruptive innovator' is being able to treat your abject ignorance of history as a strength rather than a deficiency.

The two aren't actually so different. You do get to make economic arguments a lot more openly about copyright(while, when it comes to killing, we normally make them relatively quietly and circumspectly when the unpleasant matter of what risks to the public are just part of The March of Progress and which ones are negligent or reckless comes up. We prefer not to talk about it; and have some proxies like 'VSL/ICAF' to help; but we do it); but the classifications are ultimately a policy thing and open to amendment as needed.

"Murder" superficially resembles a stable category just because of a true-by-definition trick: we call it 'murder' if a killing is unlawful and forbidden(or, rhetorically, if we think it ought to be unlawful and forbidden); so there's always a strong anti-murder consensus because everyone is against killings that are forbidden, except a few Raskolnikov-type edgelords. What there is not is actually a consensus on what killings we are or aren't against. The people who think that every other defensive option must be exhausted and the ones who are just itching to castle-doctrine the next fool who steps over the property line are both anti-murder; but not entirely in agreement on what that means; same with the current dispute over whether euthanasia is a legitimate exercise of self determination or nihilistic hyper-sin; or any of the wartime arguments over where 'collateral damage' stops being unfortunate-but-proportionate and just goes into being bulk murder.

It is somewhat more common to find(in public, not so much remotely in the vicinity of legislative power) people who will outright claim to be against copyright; because they do not consider any derivative works to be legitimately unauthorized; but here it's a more or less straightforward fight between two entities that would both claim to be in favor of copyright; but who differ on whether setting up a data mine in the BBC's backyard is copyright infringement or not.

He's the founder and CEO of one of the companies HP bought during Apotheker's...impressive...string of failures. That was in 2011; but it remained in the news first when HP wrote down their 10.3 billion dollar buy by 8.8 billion dollars; then when the litigation began by HP against previous management on the theory that they must have been cooking the books a bit for things to go so wrong so fast under HP's illustrious management.

The charges stuck against the CFO; but the CEO and VP of finance were acquitted. Then the VP of finance got hit by a car; and the CEO's celebratory yacht outing took a literal turn when the ship capsized and he died; then the VP of finance finished succumbing to his head injuries and died less than 48 hours later.

I'm not sure anyone thinks well enough of HP's ability to execute to seriously suspect them; but the background probably didn't reduce interest in getting a nice decisive root cause for the boat issue.

The comments here demonstrate a lot of AI Effect, to the point that most of it is clearly wishful thinking plus lack of experience with current-generation LLMs.

This whole debate is a little weird to me, because unassisted suicide is very easy, and cheap. Out of an abundance of caution I'll refrain from describing common cheap, painless, easy methods, but the information is very easy to obtain online. So it seems to me that the issue really only arises if the patient is already severely debilitated by their illness, such that they lack either physical capacity to carry it out. Those situations occur, of course, but they're far less common that the scope of the debate would seem to imply.

Thus, I think the first step any regulation should apply is to ask the question "Is the patient physically capable of unassisted suicide"? If the answer is yes, then no one may assist, except to provide information. This alone should filter out nearly all of the "greedy relatives" cases. If there's a case of an individual who says they want to die, and is physically capable of doing it but just can't bring themselves to... IMO that's a case of someone who hasn't really decided they want to.

Happy to: It has NO VALUE.

The problem here is that your definition of "value" is invalid. Your claim is equivalent to saying that shares of Apple stock have value because we have built systems to ensure that ownership of them is unique and non-duplicable, and that the supply is finite. But that is not what makes shares of Apple stock valuable. What makes them valuable is that they represent partial ownership of a company that produces and sells hundreds of millions of useful devices every year, among other things, and generates hundreds of billions in profits.

Shares of stock, dollars and bitcoins are all non-duplicable, finite-quantity tokens, but the shares of stock and dollars are tokens that represent something in the real world, while bitcoins represent nothing beyond proof that some electricity and some hardware was diverted to create them and transact them, rather than put to a productive purpose.

Yes, it's true that the guarantees of the non-duplicability and finite quantity are stronger for the coins than the others, which could theoretically make bookkeeping easier and reduce the need for auditing of transactions, but it turns out that the cryptoasset guarantees are hugely more expensive than the old way of bookkeeping and auditing, and the non-reversibility of crypto transactions is a fatal flaw for serious real-world use (though it's a boon for scams). If cryptoassets were easier and cheaper to exchange than traditional methods, and if there were a good way to address the reversibility gap, it would make sense for countries and companies to switch to using crypto-tokens rather than audited database entries. Maybe someday someone will invent a crypto-token design that achieves that, and then we'll trade shares of Apple stock by exchanging tokens on a blockchain (or similar). But even if we do that, it will still be the case that it's the ownership of a productive enterprise that provides value, not the token, no matter how elegant the cryptography.

Note that I'm not saying this because I don't understand the cryptography behind cryptoassets. I'm a mathematician and a professional cryptographic security engineer; this stuff is literally my day job, and has been for most of my 35-year career. I deeply understand the (actually quite simple, though cleverly assembled) cryptography and precisely what it does and doesn't do. It strongly ensures that there is a limited supply and that coins cannot be double-spent, and it does this in a decentralized way. That's it. The limited supply and non-duplicability are properties required of any asset, but aren't what give an asset value.

Most people fundamentally don't believe in markets. Look at how they react when prices rise due to a supply bottleneck or similar. They shout "Greed, we're being gouged!", even when there's plenty of competition to keep prices down and rising prices is actually the optimal solution to suppress demand in the short term and encourage increases in supply in the long term. Conservatives are worse than liberals these days, since conservatism/liberalism has evolved to be divided in large part by education level, and market mechanics are really non-obvious and counterintuitive unless you've had at least some level of formal (even if auto-didactic) education in basic economics.

I think markets are, to a first approximation, the ideal solution for every problem that involves optimization of large-group human behavior. Only when markets clearly don't or can't work should you even start to think about non-market alternatives, such as direct regulation, or even subsidies.

But shockingly few people agree. Carbon pricing immediately makes them want to know who's getting the money and why they should get it, even though that question is irrelevant to the primary goal.

I have great confidence in market-based solutions to rapidly move us toward optimal solutions to the climate problem. I have near-zero confidence that it's what we'll do. Heavy-handed, imprecise and mildly counter-productive regulation is the strategy we'll take, if anything.

More like 80% for me. I use Rust.

(In Rust, an expression without a semi-colon at the end of a block -- including at the end of a function -- is the return value for that block. This is used heavily in idiomatic Rust, which means there are lots of lines that do not end with semi-colons. The more you use short, single-purpose functions and the more you program in a functional style, the fewer semi-colons you use.)

Obviously the only computer experience worth having is on a Copilot+ AI PC; so microsoft is doing us a favor by helping us avoid legacy experiences.

I'm also a fan of market solutions. Most people aren't, though, and they're especially challenging with an international problem, so I don't think carbon taxes or warming fees is how we'll do it.

I think you present a false dichotomy. Several of the proposed geoengineering schemes are relatively inexpensive, though of course a lot of investment will be needed to demonstrate their practicality and effectiveness. I expect that geoengineering will be much cheaper than getting to net zero.

However, that doesn't mean we don't also need to get to net zero, because the geoengineering proposals only address warming, not the other effects of high atmospheric CO2. Ocean acidification and whatever is downstream of that is probably the biggest one, but there are others.

Geoengineering should be viewed as a short-term mitigation strategy, not a long-term solution. I think we'll need that mitigation, though. Assuming AI doesn't kill us all and render the whole question moot :-).

What they are not saying, but what I suspect is part of the plan, is that the numbers only work out if you actively move toward being more locked in to their products.

If you just want the basic vsphere-managing-a-few-ESXi-hosts setup the bundle is stupidly expensive; but if you try to justify the cost of the bundle by using other parts of it you end up with a system that is significantly harder to migrate away when Broadcom decides to alter the deal further.

That's not how that kind of Thunderbolt device works:

TB handles the PCIe tunneling; but the PCIe device still acts more or less as an ordinary PCIe device would. On the plus side that means that TB can support basically arbitrary PCIe peripherals(barring some very fiddly assumptions most commonly found in GPUs, especially if the firmware or OS expects a GPU to be available very early in boot); but on the minus side it's still up to the OS to know what to do with the PCIe device.