bhb916

Quite the contrary, the world you envision isn't nice to think about at all. It's impractical, inefficient, wildly haphazard, and, worse than that, would produce the exact opposite of what you're looking for. The profit motive might not be aesthetically pleasing to you but it provides the vibrant indie marketplace we see today.

I just confirmed - this book was my first purchase on Amazon. May 24th, 1999. I had just decided to go from undeclared to EECS at Cal and wanted to take a crash course in hardware. I read the book over the summer and never turned back.

What specifically did you find objectionable in his list of charities?

These laws are not made to be coherent or actually help people. They are made to curry favor with a particular base. It creates all these super strange situations where it's impossible to know what the rules will be. These nonsensical laws meant to target specific people and/or companies will be the norm going forward.

To top this all off, our ability to "put the domestic economy first" through policy is non-existent. Any attempt to fix this "problem", that you accurately described as a problem only because it's socially unacceptable, would end up harming us in some way. There is a mountain of evidence over the last century to back this up, we just refuse to listen.

This isn't textbook Baader–Meinhof, but after 4 decades of never consciously hearing about this fruit I've now encountered it three times in one week: [1] on the allowed low fodmap diet, [2] in the lyrics of a jungle book song, and [3] this article. My family is now on a mission to find one and taste test.

That doesn't seem like a problem - that seems like a feature. Maybe "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" just stuck with me, but a just society doesn't sacrifice the prosperity of a few for the "greater good".

Pre-uber it was common at McCarren Airport (Las Vegas) that taxis would intentially take you the wrong way to spike their fare. Those who knew would have to demand the driver to not take the tunnel, and even then they would argue with you. There is no reason not to think that this was common everywhere.

Ugh. Sorry to hear that. IMHO the damage done to the kids here is worse than the risks they would face from the virus.

Kudos to you for doing what you can to keep your kids connected socially.

Facebook Kids Messenger is decent (for all the reasons you mentioned), however, I am pessimistic about it being genuinely appealing to kids. It's staying alive because middle-aged parents are forcing it on their children - they are the consume and decision-maker. My experience is once kids are allowed to make their own decisions they quickly move away from it.

But what about the driver who doesn't want to be classified as an employee? What right do they have?

Less trite - my nephew is in his mid-twenties and appreciates the flexibility that food delivery and ride sharing allows him. Is legislation that outlaws that an improvement?

This reply is spot on top to bottom.

"Who knows what sort of damage it will cause in the Five Eyes countries next time a moral hysteria sweeps through the public..."

That moral hysteria is NOW and every day since mid-march.

Genuine question: how will these countries keep deaths below 10 a week while being completely out of lockdown? Doesn't that rely on a treatment or vaccine?

Fragile systems are generally built using single points of failure. Centrally planned solutions are generally rife with them. I will trust the robustness of a system made up of 327.7M individual plans then the command solutions you are suggesting. We will fair much better than Italy even if the disease is more widespread here.

"Beaches and rivers belong to all of us."

This seems like an arbitrary distinction. What makes you think this and not something like "all geographic features belong to all of us"? What makes beaches and rivers so special that rights suddenly don't apply?