EdTsft

That interpretation of rights is not universal and in my experience seems to be a philosophy mainly coming from the US (presumably reinforced by the language in the American bill of rights). I view rights as describing the actual (implicit or explicit) contract between a people and their government, not as an absolute metaphysical or moral concept. In my view, a person in a developed nation has a stronger right to clean water than a person in an impoverished nation as statement of fact observable from the effort their government goes to to ensure they have clean water. I prefer this view of rights divorced from morals because it lets a population pressure their government for rights based on what they want rather than getting bogged down on whether it is morally right to e.g. have access to guns or silence in criminal proceedings.

I have a hard time believing this, are you suggesting that it is perfectly legal to run pirated software so long as you never entered a license agreement with the creator? Or that the existence of a license you've never interacted with and potentially have no knowledge of has an impact on the legality of you running pirated software? What if a company's internal software is leaked, surely they have the right to prevent other companies from using it?

YouTube is very convenient for hosting and sharing recordings of talks. You can't put a video recording in a mailing list or a paper journal, and journal/conference websites are generally not in the business of hosting video recordings.

Often it's much easier to understand another's research in the form of a presentation than a paper (papers give you the details but not necessarily the high level story), so, like it or not, YouTube is a significant scientific repository.

So all the more reason not to send data to the US to not make it easier for them

It's interesting how the US has such a different cultural view of rights than other English speaking commonwealth countries that you'd expect to be culturally similar. I can't speak for other countries but as a Canadian I view the idea of "inalienable" or "god-given" rights as preposterous. A right is a promise a government makes to a people. I have a much more expansive right to free speech than someone in North Korea does, that's just an objective reality since the North Korean government does not make the promise of free speech to their people. I have no right to be granted employment if I cannot find it myself, but that right has existed for others in various places and times. You can say that people should have certain rights, but to me it's wrong as a statement of fact to say that they already have them.

This view of rights also makes it easy to say that we should have the right to healthcare, or food and water, or housing. You don't have to debate about whether those are "inalienable human rights" to decide that it would be better for our government to make those promises to our citizens.

More of an aside, it is weird to me that you would include the right to not self-incriminate among the set of inalienable rights. That one seems like a much more arbitrary detail of your justice system than some more obvious right like access to food and clean water.

Only the US sanctioned Cuba and while it was pretty harmful, they were still able to trade with most other countries. North Korea has China right next door as a big trade partner, and can trade with many non-US countries as well. As for Iran, from what I can tell UN sanctions really only started to ramp up in the 2010s and those did have an effect in getting Iran to suspend its nuclear program.

Edit: But to be clear, I think the US sanctions on Cuba are gratuitous and cruel. Cuba is not some rogue state and there are many worse dictatorships that aren't sanctioned. However, I think it reinforces the point that "sanctions can be devastatingly effective applied by a significant majority of the world" because in the Cuba case the rest of the world didn't agree.

I'm not sure that it would. The Earth isn't perfectly spherical so the gravitational field will be different at different times in the orbit. Then because it is orbiting you'll also have to deal with tidal forces (bits slightly closer to the Earth will want to move slightly faster), not to mention possible acceleration from solar radiation or small amounts of atmospheric drag.

And during the time that takes you're suffering the consequences of a viral infection. Majormajor was replying to a comment suggesting that it might somehow have been possible to evolve the equivalent of a COVID-19 vaccine, which allows your immune system to adapt without experiencing a viral infection. What couldn't possibly work is for your body to already naturally be immune before experiencing the virus.

That sounds like an excellent way for the US to torpedo their relationship with Canada, as if the trade war and COVID response isn't doing enough already. Canada's stance on the arrest is based on its legitimacy and the impartiality of the judiciary. The public will be outraged if it comes out that we've had to suffer China's wrath for a political stunt by the US.

On mobile Firefox (at least for me) nothing appears below the intro message. The last line I see is "Made for you by ...".

I'm a Torontonian and I was looking forward to the project. I'm sad to see it cancelled. (It's a big city with many opinions, I don't think you can fairly claim that quote about "thousands of Torontonians" is "simply not true" from a sample size of dozens, the author is not even claiming all those people supported the Quayside project specifically).

Sure, some parts of the project looked like tech for tech's sake but I was excited about the urban design plans and architecture. And who knows, maybe some of the tech-y things would turn out to be good too. That's what experiments are for, and this wasn't a very large scale or risky one when compared to the size of the city so it's worth it to me to try new things even if many of the ideas don't work out. As for data issues, it seemed like the city and Waterfront Toronto were not afraid to exercise a lot of control on that front so Sidewalk Labs wasn't going to be able to do whatever they wanted, a lot of effort was going into ensuring it was in the public interest. This latest news supports the idea that the city was uncompromising in supporting what they see as the public interest - even to the extent that Sidewalk labs gives up entirely.

I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society?

Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the average consumer to research the worker quality of life (and the product safety history, and the environmental record, and the political donations, and the tax evasion tactics, and ...) of all of the hundreds or thousands of companies that they give money to. These aren't the kinds things we can expect to solve with consumer boycotts.