abdullahkhalids

The goal of poetry is also to condense complex thoughts into few words. Single couplets are quoted over and over again in human discourse (assuming you speak the right languages, live in the right circles or read the right books).

You can certainly communicate deep and lasting thoughts in 140 characters.

The stated reason is that physical business, when they use the country's infrastructure pay tax to contribute to the upkeep. But presumably, internet businesses, especially those based outside the country use the infrastructure but do not pay for the upkeep. This tax is supposed to address this issue.

While the solution might not be optimal, how valid is the underlying problem? Can someone make genuine steelman arguments?

I would compare them more to media released under the creative commons license.

For example, you can record yourself playing different instruments, singing, and making other sounds. Then you can go combine all these recordings into a song, and you release the song under a CC license. The CC licenses framework does not demand that you also release the component recordings. But the released song can be remixed by someone else.

(Not making a value judgement, just making an equivalence).

"everybody has to be within 3 blocks of a bus stop" is a political choice. It might result in a system that is not optimal from the perspective of a different metric. If you think that different metric would serve people better, go advocate for it politically. But realize that whatever metric gets adopted will still be a political choice. There is no escaping that.

Of course, as you say in the OP, one can certainly encourage the public to use simulations based on publicly made-available data as a guide during these political discussions to convince people that a certain metric is better than others.

Pretty much all large public transit authorities already collect all sorts of data about requirements and usage, and have scientists/engineers on payroll to optimize the network within the economic and political constraints these systems operate in.

> I only notice one problematic thing there in your link: Wrong recipient.

There is a trade-off. Many systems do offer the ability to get your money back without the cooperation of the recipient. But those systems are also filled with the scam, where you send someone money, then convince them to send the money back manually, and finally reverse the original transaction.

You can counter this by more policing of these types of scams, but usually the amounts in each individual case are small, so police have very little incentive to do anything about it.

Chargebacks and fraud protection are largely needed in the credit/debit card system because you go around handing people the key to your safe to merchants and ask them to take whatever they want. And pinky promise not to share the key with anyone else.

Once you have sane system like pix or upi, there is far less need for chargebacks and frauds.

This is an equivalent of a company producing security software, open sourcing their code, and then claiming that since no one has found any serious bugs, their software is secure.

No. The way to build confidence that your software is well made, you do a proper external security audit and obtain the requisite certificate from a proper auditing firm.

It's also incorrect to think peer review in mathematics is low quality (like it is in some other fields). Certainly, when major results are in place, editors ensure that high quality peer reviewers are recruited and do their job properly. Like all human processes this fails sometimes, but not enough to not do it.

OpenAI has expressed this sentiment by not submitting to or saying they will submit their results to peer reviewed journals.

You can choose the type of questions you want to get asked about in StreetComplete. If you want to only enter store names and timings, then go into Settings and pick those.

Whenever you analyze a dynamic system, the primary question you ask is, which direction will it evolve in, and will it hit some steady state?

If you apply this thinking to the economic system practiced in most countries, the answer is that the system forces have been set up in a way that the capital owners need to be paid back on an exponential schedule, and there are barely any counter-forces to this. Hence, the system will never hit a real steady state. People will continue to creatively design more and more immoral methods of extracting monetary value from a finite system that cannot indefinitely and continuously grow exponentially. There is no other way to pay back the capitalists. There is no counter-force.

Most people on a budget (i.e. the vast majority of people) are constantly using exact or approximate multiplication while shopping. And they are rarely whipping out their calculator for this purpose.