loki49152

"Google contains multitudes"

It does not contain people who flout Google's privacy, security, or intellectual property policies. Those people are, quite rightfully, un-contained from Google with speed they can't muster for anything else in the company.

A lot of the people who comment here are techie provincials who literally have no understanding that the things they believe, or at least the things they recite as their beliefs, are ideas that might be analyzed and judged against reality.

.... as opposed to what? What do you think they should have done, sat around waiting to be captured so the could be featured in a NoKo TikTok video?

The latter is an "impossible question" because it's a meaningless question.

"You essentially outline why it should be broken up."

No, they didn't. They explained why breaking Google up would kill all of those "free" services.

"Google is a monopoly, they exert monopoly power and enjoy monopoly pricing."

No, they aren't. There are a multitude of other ad platforms available for anyone to use. Google has no power to stop them. "Most desirable service" does not constitute a monopoly in an open market. Monopolies can only be created by government dictate, like old AT&T or modern cable companies.

We don't need new regulations. This is probably covered by commercial fraud statutes, as they represented the sale of the device as a sale of tangible personal property. There is no condition required to complete that purchase - the offer is of the physical device and the implied ability to use that device for its obvious purpose.

That's not entirely their fault. Those programs were designed and instituted to make as many people as possible dependent on them so they would become a captured voting bloc.

You can derive morality from observation if you aren't looking for ontological "ought statements". Hume's position assumes that the religious approach to morality is the only one possible - that morality consists of these detached and universal "ought statements" that must be observable in the Universe somehow and take on the same form as Commandments from a God.

That's not how the Objectivist ethics works, at all. There are no "ought statements" because ethics, in Objectivism, is a system of judgement and reasoning. It's applied epistemology.

So, no, you won't find a mythological ethics in reality. But you can learn how to identify the nature of things and judge how they relate, positively or negatively, to human life. And that's the essence of Objectivist morality.

She didn't "feel like she needed Social Security".

In fact, she instructed her fiduciary to not apply for it on her behalf because she didn't need it, and her detractors would use her participation to smear her.

Her fiduciary convinced her to be enrolled by citing her own "restitution" argument and the fact that, as a fiduciary, she had an obligation to pursue all of her client's financial interests to the extent of her ability under the law.

That's what you just cited above. At Rand's death, her estate was estimated to be worth somewhere between $500,000 to $2 million dollars. Rand didn't feel she needed it. Her fiduciary did risk management for her.

And she didn't engage in hypocrisy. It has a meaning.

The NixOS team is an order of magnitude more unstable than their software. The most surprising thing here is that anyone who needs their systems to actually work would rely on it, given the history of the project and the maintainers' psychotic behavior.

- their attempts at having kids decades later take longer or fail completely

Isn't that normal when you try to have kids "decades later"?

LLMs don't do formal reasoning. Not in any sense. They don't do any kind of reasoning - they replay combinatorics of the reasoning that was encoded in their training data via "finding" the patterns in the relationships of the tokens at different scales and then applying those to the generation of some output triggered by the input.