MiddTech

Money

I agree it's almost certainly true that it's just a made up term that happened to be what they picked that particular day and it stuck.

Its probably a failure of imagination on my part, but how does it promote systemic racism? At this point isn't it just part of the lexicon ?

I'm possibly missing something but i can't see an actual rebuttal to the comic ?

Perhaps it's my reading of the comic. I'm seeing a comment about software engineering as a profession in relation to other similar "engineering" fields, specifically about them being less mature/regulated/proffesional. Then a reference to how software running voting machines is terrifying, the article then goes on to deatil why that's the case.

The details of why e-voting is hard are interesting and raise some good points, but it's in no way addressing the "claims" in the comic.

I agree with you on that first part , it was a contrived example to illustrate the point, but in practical terms, not so helpful.

I also agree with subjectivity as being it's own interesting topic of conversation.

Universal imperitive to prevent outbreaks having no possible subjectivity though? that's just bait.

I'm not arguing that taking a stance is bad per se, i'm arguing that almost anything you might want to take a stance on is subjective.

As an example: Reduce harm: depends on perspective (define harm?), timeframe, priorities. Avoid collapse of what?, current society? which one? all of them ? Maximise benefit is the same as reduce harm in its subjectiveness and "everyone" is a big ask given that some perspectives on certain points are potentially mutually exclusive.

A somewhat topical example would be:

"Let everyone get covid-19 by not imposing measures designed to stop the spread, that way the stock market takes less of a plunge because [Insert economic reasons here]" vs "Impose measures to follow the model that most analysis(from current data) agrees will minimise the loss of life, at the cost of the stock market taking a hit"

How do you maximise benefit for both parties in that case? only impose half off the measures? who decides what is the fair middle ground ?

Problem with that is that "best possible outcome" is all about perspective.

I'm not sure if there is a subjective way to quantify such a thing without first taking a stance.

Once you take a stance, the only difference between you and the existing WHO is the particular stance you have taken (assuming it's a different position)

Makes sense, but how would that be labelled. Any documentation or written/printed representation would need a label (preferably a consistent one).

Taiwan, China or just Taiwan?

What happens if you need to display a map of a contested area? any represenation you show will raise the hackles of some nation state or other.

"Which country it is shouldn't matter much." is an admirable goal, but at the risk of being pessimistic, it just isn't how nation states work.

The new ghost 3.0 release is pretty fancy wrt to the styling and layout defaults.

For various subjective reasons, i've not used medium extensively so i can't compare like for like, but from what i have used it's not significantly better than ghost on the usability/styling front.

"This is wrong because i believe it to be so, based on my personal beliefs, therefore you should too" is almost the very definition of a subjective argument. Though i admit i may have entirely missed the objective statement in there.

In this vein ^, what are his thoughts on Von Neumann probes?

I'm currently in a group matched by the service and its working fine for me.

There was a significant delay between signing up and being matched but i am fairly certain that was due to massive demand when it first opened.

The others in my group had no such delay.

If you know other people who might be interested in doing a mastermind group with you it might be better to group with people you know.

In my case it was worth it to use the service, YMMV

Edit: dammit, double spacing