TomatoDash

Thanks, I'll look into that product. Less costly, but still far from the $2 scenario. If hardware keys got to a super low price point, or even handed out for free or bundled with new phones or PCs, I image lots of people would prefer them over passkeys.

A bit of a tangent but do you have a view on prices for hardware security keys like YubiKey? For private use they're a pricey option, especially if you get a few backup keys. Could a big actor like Google, if they wanted, scale up production, sell at cost and get prices down to say $2 each? Or is the components and manufacturing inherently more costly? Is there anything on the horizon that likely will bring much lower prices?

Good read! I wish we had a shorter name for "breaking down tasks". Perhaps taskspec, short for "task specifying". Or taskdev?

Both the Economist's text and the Fraunhofer press release focus mostly on the benefit of not using certain refrigerants. But for in home AC use noise reduction might be a much stronger selling point. Especially in Europe where it is common with so called portable indoor AC units that put the noisy compressor inside the room you want to cool down.

> If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes

As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless?

To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.

But you or someone you care about could become a murder victim in both packages. Indeed the likelihood for that unwanted outcome is higher in the second package. I prefer the policy alternative that lowers the risk of people being murdered.

"justice ... Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values."

Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.

> if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy?

Yes, if the "best thing .. in terms of .. crime rate" includes fewer murders. I prefer the package (fewer murders + higher percentage of murderers unpunished) over the package (more murders + lower percentage of murderers unpunished). Where unpunished does not mean "no reaction" but rather treatment, medication and rehabilitation.

They advocate a whole-foods plant-based diet. Meats/cheeses made out of plants aren't whole foods though. Generally we have to think critically and scrutinize sources cited and if they back up claims made. Do you have some such specific objection in this case?

Oh I see. The linked paper uses vegetarianism in a wider sense that covers that too.

From the linked Calibre FAQ:

> Why doesn’t calibre let me store books in my own folder structure?

> ... a search/tagging based interface is superior to folders ...

> ... much more efficient than any possible folder scheme you could come up with ...

Quite opinionated software. That and the quirky UI are reasons why I only use Calibre for a conversion or de-DRM here and there. Jump in, flail around until task done, fast exit.

Hence my sentences 2, 3 and 4.