The proposed solution of depopulation is based on a flawed premise. It isn't necessarily true that a growing population needs greater access to fossil fuel. Rather, as access to fossil fuel grows so can the population.
It's interesting to see the range of perspectives on work put forth in this thread. I'd only point out how strange it is that the question of what is being worked towards isn't more often in these discussions. I can only imagine that is because there is predominate perception of individuals as competitors rather than allies. Unfortunately such a perception keeps the masses grasping for their share rather than promoting a common drive towards abundance.
natural (comparative more natural, superlative most natural)
1. That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem.
2. Of or relating to nature.
3. Without artificial additives.
4. As expected; reasonable.
------
mechanical (comparative more mechanical, superlative most mechanical)
1. (now rare) Characteristic of someone who does manual labour for a living; coarse, vulgar.
2. Related to mechanics (the branch of physics that deals with forces acting on mass).
3. Related to mechanics (the design and construction of machines)
4. Done by machine.
(These definitions were sourced from Wiktionary)
I hope these senses of the terms natural and mechanical help with drawing a clear distinction between what is authentically natural and what is not. If you seek further context about the distinction then search out for senses of the terms nature and artificial. Also, in response to the high regard for labor productivity, remember that efficiency can be a force for both creation and destruction.
Note that the capabilities introduced by telephone-based technology also presented issues that were seldom entertained by the minds of people. This was also true for the car and horse VS the mere walking traveler.
Telephones/Telegrams allow for quick communication at the cost of guaranteed integrity of the information (in the case of an eavesdropper altering data in transit), at the cost of privacy and at the cost of reliability. None of these issues have to be problems faced by the users but all have the capacity to be introduced by the service providers at leisure or as a byproduct of their foresight.
Telephones, telegrams, cars, horses, houses, boats, schools and governments have all brought with them new forms of dependence -- and people have thus far been able to perform cost-benefit analysis of and bring innovation to these technologies. However, it seems that today more and more people are incapable of coming to true results when performing an analysis on the integrity of today's technologies and service providers, perhaps out of naivety -- and this is likely the product of not understanding the technology well enough to move on, to develop an alternative platform, or to properly govern one's activity on the platform to mitigate perceived risks.
> Recidivism rates were actually higher than those who just were sent to prison with a 67% recidivism rate for halfway house residents compared to 60% for prison-only convicts.
In this comparison, the virtue of each institution has been blindly discarded in favor of highlighting the substantial failures of both. That is -- "Because both institutions have failed at achieving their intent, neither institution appears to be capable of achieving a good result."
If we were to include the virtue designated by each approach then it should be clear to see the short term & long term differences between incarceration and rehabilitation.
> And of course those rates are just within 3 years. They get much higher over time.
Albert Einstein is widely credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
---
In response to the opinion you've stated:
> In my opinion the major problem is once a culture develops around criminality it becomes practically impossible to detach the criminality from the culture, as resisting reform becomes part of the culture.
In response to the assertion you've made:
> Prison is not seen as game over. It's just another part of the game, and prison time is worn as a badge of honor once people are out, as it shows how 'hard' they are, and gains instant respect.
And in response to the questions you've raised:
> The more important question then is where did this culture come from, how did it emerge and spread, and how could that be stopped in the future?
Reformation as an act is a change of system and not a change in culture. Reformation will lead to a favorable cultural shift if and only if the system effectively addresses the needs of the individuals within the culture.
1. Anything less than reformation is utter neglect.
2. Accompanying neglect is malnutrition.
3. Cultures don't develop with criminality as an end all be all. Cultures develop with nutrition as an end all be all.
> To suggest that your concerns and what constitutes a single voter issue for you is wrong is condescending.
> Since you think net neutrality is a stupid single voter issue then I suggest it not be one for you.
This argument seems to have finished on the wrong point.
It isn't that net neutrality or any other issues have more or less value (although they intrinsically do -- that's for the individual to decide). Instead it's that single issue voting is severely short-sighted since the very same politician may support several other policies contradicting your own well-being.
Yes the example above is extreme but this is what it attempts to convey.
Overall I agree with you. I agree that for me net neutrality is not that important. But in a nation with as much voter apathy, with the growing sense of voting being futile I’ll take a single issue voter that gets galvanized. If everyone were a single issue voter it’d be a mess. With a few people not so much.
So, _Schenck_ has largely been overturned on a number of occasions, but the following (untested) likely still holds as punishable (but not forbidden against through ante-hoc regulations):
* _Falsely_ shouting fire
* in a crowded theater
* for the purpose of imminently inciting harm to others
We started at submission about Google employees waving around a paper tiger petition, we proceeded to top ranked reminder to everyone of DARPA and how military funding is the One True Way, then on to crypto export controls, rolling onward into a gun control debate, conflating semi-automatic weapons with rocket launchers, and finally into yes, the meaning behind "fire in a crowded theater."
The comment section on HN is now second only to the comments from Yahoo news stories. Keep up the great work everyone.
To be fair, the thing that is most oft intended by the idiom is "look, if the cherished first amendment can be restricted, then so too can the second amendment".
It isn't a law, and where I say "might" in my follow-up, it should not be confused with "is" or "will". There are no laws that forbid you from exclaiming fire in a theater. People think there are because Oliver Wendell Holmes made a clumsy aside while explaining a bad decision that has since been overturned.
Either way, the real point to this is that a punishment for negligent use of one's rights (e.g., falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater for the purposes of causing harm to others) is still not remotely the same as banning free exercise of that right, or converting that right into a privilege through licensure, as is being suggested as rational compromises for the second amendment, predicated on a clumsy and wrong-headed interpretation on the first.
We might all prefer it if you had to obtain a license to speak in a theater, on the grounds that yelling fire in one might prove too dangerous a responsibility for average citizens, but I think most of us would agree that it would violate the first amendment quite heinously. The only way to imagine that equivalent restrictions are less heinous when applied to the second amendment is if one takes the second amendment less seriously as a "real" right, or to imagine that such restrictions are common on the first amendment. It isn't less real a right, and such restrictions are not common on the first, despite misuse of the aforementioned idiom.
> You are right, both sides are to blame, but this don’t make any of the them better.
(Both sides refer to the broadcast/online media & commercial/political ad campaigns)
Blame can only be placed on either party if there exists the prior assumption that people should believe all things which are presented to them as fact. If this assumption does not exist and without facilities responsible for fact-checking then it's only the individual that is responsible for dividing fact from fiction.
False. Profitable private companies have to deal with loss all the time. It's called shrinkage. It can be mitigated, but like everything the costs of mitigation must be weighed against the benefits.
Keep in mind, right-wing governments actively exploit this "corruption exists, therefore the entire social program is worthless" bug in our national consciousness. It's an effective political tool to transfer wealth away from the poor.
I agree with parent:
> Let’s us not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Operating System:
- the software that supports a computer's basic functions, such as scheduling tasks, executing applications, and controlling peripherals.
Blockchain:
- A decentralized and distributed digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that the record cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and the collusion of the network.
