shlurpy

Rusts error handling is almost identical to checked exceptions in practice. The reason it works is because there is no real equivalent to easily handle-able unchecked exceptions, and because macros and sum types make it very easy to wrap a lower level error in your higher level error and rethrow.

Basically, checked exceptions could have worked, if they were the only type, and had better ergonomics of use, and a language culture that emphasized correctness more.

Checked exceptions were wrong for Java, but that does not mean they are wrong universally.

That's one of the purposes of government regulatory agencies. Laws could be enforced entirely through courts, but regulators can fine on behalf of the ordinary people instead of those wealthy enough to sue.

What would being held in contempt mean? It seems to be just another fine.

Somethinf that would require the attention of thr intelligence services, like, say, getting an unwanted pregnancy in America. The government can and does change its standards, and the tools that can be used against you will be used against you.

The biggest trick ever played by the ruling elite was convincing people that private property rights and capitalism were somehow related to and necessary for democracy. Democracy should be that power comes from the people, but wealth creates unaccountable power structures that have far more power over the lives of most people then any government.

Such rights mean nothing when people lose their respect for them. Democracies work when a sufficiently vast majority of those within them belive that the systems are fundamentally good.

Lynching represent a public belief that whatever systems are in place are insufficient to bring justice. They happen regardless of what rights are declared in some legal text or whatever. The solution to building a better democracy always returns to building better, more trusted institutions, and building thr peoples trust that they are fair, and inalienable rights are just another such institution.

Water is a necessity. Making it unaffordable literally is a death sentence. Those who would mass murder poor people rather then have a yellow lawn are morally reprehensible.

They literally constitutionally cannot ask the farmers, and you need a very mobilized populace to change the constitution. That's only going to happen when people see the consequences of inaction, and its probably better that happen gradually for useless laws then suddenly for all drinking water.

Yeah, I just mentally translate it to "Just shut up already and let's move on to stuff that matters."

The threat of suffering and death are the threats used both to make you work for money, and to make you eat healthy and work out. However, the consequences of the former are much more imminent, while the consequences of the latter can take years to show up. Unfortunately, we find delayed reward or punishment to be a much weaker motivator.

You gloss over the economic issues, but those are fundamentally at the center of it. Some copy-able work can be done by semi-amateurs in their free time, and some can be paid for as a 1-off contract without needing exclusivity, but most seems to require trained labor with a guaranteed return on investment.

What it comes down to is that under capitalism, a lot of art like movies, tv, video games, certain more polished professional tools, etc, requires an artifical concept of ownership to ensure that people are able to spend time creating them, because choosing to do too much uncompensatable labor is effectively choosing to starve to death.

But maybe, like me, you see the possibility of a future where we can find a way to compensate art that isn't locked into the grim realities of capitalism. Well, cool, but then political strategy has to be considered. As is, ML seems to be a technology that funnels money away from compensating creators and towards large corporations that can invest in ML and their shareholders. And in our practical reality, more money buys more speech, more speech tends to lead to more power. Thus, self interest rules the day, with the wealthiest uninterested in changing the fundamental economics systems and working to stop it.

That's why I am concerned about ML and copyright. It would be no problem in an ideal world, but in our world, it makes the status quo worse in a way that prevents progress towards that ideal.

It's not about pollution, it's about actively spending billions to prevent any solutions once we knew it was a problem.

The better solution would be something like separate elected offices for different interests, with representation based on how much an area is affected by that legislation, instead of a single position for everything.

I think the jury thing is onto something... a small group rather then an individual can work wonders to cover for the failings and corruptability of the others.