antientropic

The economics prize is listed on nobelprize.org ("the official website of the Nobel Prize") along with the other Nobel prizes, so I don't think you can justify calling it "unofficial".

Perhaps if the ACM renamed the Turing Award to "The Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Computer Science", the Nobel Foundation would let them get away with it.

Because the plaintiffs are Swiss. Who else should they sue? Similar cases have happened elsewhere, e.g. the Urgenda case in the Netherlands.

Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)

> There is an international court of human rights.

There isn't. There is the ICJ, which handles disputes between states, and the ICC, which handles war crimes etc. and definitely isn't going to judge climate legislation.

Your quote left out "subject to a confidentiality agreement". Streamers are not obliged to make this information public, and I don't expect companies like Amazon to do so since they're extremely secretive about viewership numbers.

How would you define "movement" without reference to "time"?

> but it keeps not happening

The article you're responding to is a dramatic demonstration that it has happened: Amazon's IPs would not be worth $4.5B if we hadn't run out. It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.

Because nobody has yet bothered to sue them for false advertising, so they continue to get away with it.

The vast majority of C programmers do not use a formally verified C compiler, and most of them wouldn't care about that anyway.

From a security perspective, demanding a formally verified C compiler is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Switching to a safer language like Rust will do much more to improve security, even if the compiler is not verified.

This is what happens when a new security model is retrofitted onto an existing one.

In the original Unix security model, there was no security concern with this (except maybe for chroot environments): it didn't allow a process to do something it couldn't otherwise do, since all processes owned by a uid had exactly the same rights. Now that we've started sandboxing user processes in various ways on macOS and Linux, that's no longer the case, and we suddenly need to crack down on useful tools like strace and gdb.

Not a very convincing article, since it presents some statistics about the US (e.g. "only 10% of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation and only 2% file lawsuits") but does not compare them to other countries, so we can't tell whether the US is more or less litigious than the rest of the world.

Looking at the current war in Ukraine, the "martial spirit" seems to be alive and well in Europe.

There is no such thing as an inherent right. Rights are a legal construct. They don't grow on trees and are not laws of physics. There are rights that I may believe should be universal, yet very clearly are not.

East Germany did not "collapse" in any sense relevant to a discussion about preppers. It peacefully re-unified with West Germany and was never in anything resembling a state of anarchy.