aestetix

Incidentally, with this update, Android will lose any edge it had, and become a shittier and less polished version of iOS.

This sounds like know-it-all propaganda as well. Why not make it opt-in? Google (and other Big Tech companies) seem to think they know better than everyone else, even though they are also completely untransparent about what they do.

There's an interesting point hidden here. A lot of people claim that 2600 is obsolete because it is still in print as opposed to going full digital like a lot of places did.

30 years ago, a lot of us thought that the internet and digital would bring freedom. We would no longer have to rely on the good mercy of book stores or newsstands willing to stock the magazines, or convince reluctant editors to print articles. We could just put it online where it would live forever.

It turns out that when something is online, it is much easier to ban or censor. Remember when the drama about Kevin Spacey came out, and all the streaming services removed his movies and TV shows? What about when a news story is posted and gets a bit of heat, so the editor goes in to edit it to remove the offending bits to appease the mob? Or deletes an article because they had bad blood with the writer?

If you have a physical DVD of a movie, no streaming service can block it. And if you have the print version of the newspaper or the magazine, then the editor can't just break into your house and cut the article out of the issue. I mean I guess they could, but that is a LOT harder than just clicking a button in a CMS.

How about applying political pressure to countries like China and India that do not care about emissions control and pollution? :)

I'd argue this is too expansive of a view. It's a debate specifically coming out of the English Civil War, and specifically focusing on the tension between Parliament and the Monarchy. If you read Clarendon it becomes extremely obvious. Hobbes (like Clarendon) took the royalist view defending the king, and Locke set for an argument for parliament.

Some of it doesn't translate super well into modern times. For example, Locke barely touches upon judiciary. The modern notion of separation of powers came (I believe) from Montesquieu.

I will say that Hobbes gives a far more comprehensive argument than Locke does. And some of Locke's details, including his anthropology of the origin of commonwealths, is demonstrably false.

Either way, glad to see Leviathan here!

There were a few news outlets (I think maybe the Washington Post?) that got copies of recordings of these insane lectures when Peter Thiel did them in San Francisco. I think it would be in the public interest for them to release the lectures in full.

Maybe people should put some pressure on these outlets to do so.