Remember when Microsoft got in years of antitrust lawsuits over bundling a browser with their OS? Bring back that level of legal scrutiny to antitrust, and sever the absurdly close ties the US government has with the top 100 companies in the country.
I say force them to FOSS their microcodes, firmwares, and drivers. Same thing for Intel/AMD. Same for all UEFI code. ARM doesn't get to escape either. No more 'appliance' Universal Machines; if you sell a Universal Machine as or in your product then you must allow the owner or primary leasee full access to it and its capabilities. This includes segmentation switches, which must not be permanent fuses. If a chip is segmented due to failure of manufacture, then the owner/leasee unsegmenting it should be at owner/leasee's risk.
Perhaps so. There's certainly a problem with producers using financialization to distort the market for their products. But I think financialization itself is the larger problem. Financial engineering of various kinds seems to make up more of our economy than ever, despite the lessons of the 2008 crisis, and I conjecture that the real economic benefits come anywhere near the nominal gains; that is to say, I we've badly unestimated the inflationary impact of ubiquitous financialization.
I don't think they need to be broken up. Nvidia needs to be investigated.
There are stories of huge amounts of sold chips sitting in warehouses unused. This could be channel stuffing which is illegal
There are stories of Nvidia threatening that customers have to buy these chips now or they will be cut off and not able to buy the next gen. That may be illegal
Since when is channel stuffing illegal? It can happen for any number of reasons. There's often a difference between sell-in figures and sell-through figures.
The leader of the New Zealand Green Party once stated "I am a violence prevention minister and I know who causes violence in the world, it is white, cis men."
I strongly believe (or hope) that in the future the idea of viewing everything through a lens of group theory and identifying who has privilege and who suffers the most in terms of stereotypical cohorts, which is the dominant medium for attributing blame in society at large now, will be viewed by future societies with disdain.
Being able to say that as a political figure and not getting an unequivocal drumming down by everyone else shows how far gone the west is. There is no turning this ship around.
I hope you agree it's because she identified a demographic group of as causing a lot of problems, not because of which group she chose, right? The most powerful man in the world is blaming trans women for half the world's ills and we can all agree they're both bad statements?
Well, if she deliberately singled out this specific group to appeal to certain voters, then it makes perfect sense to be angry about it. In principle, it's no different from racists or bigots targeting minorities and blaming them for society's problems.
I'd guess that's exactly what's happening here. She could have simply said "men," which would have been a truthful statement. Instead, she specifically said "white cis men," which is a blatant lie.
It's the same tactic as blaming everything on immigrants or Roma people. You know what your voters already believe and what they want to hear, so you tell them exactly that. You reinforce their prejudices to win their support.
Is it even possible to step back from this level of polarization? Centrists quickly get shoved into one side or the other depending on where their funding or family loyalties are. It just keeps ratcheting up when I start to think it's starting to level off
Honestly, yes I think it is possible for things to get better because they have frankly been FAR worse, for reference see most of human history. Most of us lived our formative years in an era of unprecedented peace, we currently find ourselves in an era of transition which often leads to periods of tribalism and strife.
I suppose that's the long and short of it. Material excess just gives us a break from tribalism, but it's always there just under the surface. I'll try to share your optimism
> Material excess just gives us a break from tribalism
Material excess is what gives many people a means to express their tribalism in the way that they do instead of being occupied with some productive activity for the common good.
The New Zealand Green Party got 13.3% of the vote. I could pull all sorts of absolute drivel from any party in any country of the world that got ~ 13.3% of the vote.
Declaring "the west gone" is something better left on a reactionary platform like X, rather than something like Hacker News.
Seems like a fairly high percentage for a green party. Are you saying it was low because of their comments? Did they lose media support or have to apologize?
I'm not well-read on New Zealand politics outside of the broadest strokes (e.g. positive indigenous involvement). I would imagine very few people on this forum are well-read on New Zealand politics, given the demographics that we can probably collectively safely assume.
> Seems like a fairly high percentage for a green party.
Which makes this statement, unless you're well-read on New Zealand politics, pretty strange. Do you even know if they have something like ranked choice voting, or vote-for-party rather than vote-for-candidate, that could greatly impact the performance of smaller national parties?
Downvote me all you want, pessimism is never popular but its often right.
It's a zero-sum game. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is pursuing power. Power means different things, in different contexts, but it always gets back to power.
The most obvious form of power is resources and money. But there are so many other forms. These identity and gender issues we've seen over the last 10 years have absolutely, undoubtedly been at the core about one thing: power.
Now before you get all upset, pursuing power isn't always a bad thing. If you've been historically marginalized, aren't you within your right as a human being to seek equality? The question really is in how you do it, and who suffers as a result, and how far you take it. It's very easy to swing the pendulum back too far, and end up in a society that may or may not be any better but just different.
I don't know about white and cis, but you can't argue with facts that men are overwhelmingly the source of individual violence (as opposed to wars, etc.).
Physical violence is the only thing that everyone agrees is violence. Threats of physical violence are also probably considered violence by a majority, though such judgements are often conditional on the credibility of the threat.
Manipulating state power to deprive people of essentials is also arguably violence, since the state's power is ultimately realized in its monopoly on the same.
Saying mean things to people may be abusive, but it isn't violence in the sense that an unqualified reference generally means.
> Physical violence is the only thing that everyone agrees is violence
For a very long time, everyone agreed that ADHD was defined in how it manifested in males. It is a very limited way to view the world and it create all kind of illogical conclusions that doesn't make any sense.
Bisexual women are statically twice as physical violent when in relationship with women then when with men. Similar, bisexual men are half as physical violent when in relationship with men, compared to relationships with women. The crime statistics are clear here, and yet, it makes absolute zero sense that how physical violent a person is depend on the gender of their partner.
There is however some explanations for the statistics if one start to view the spectrum of violent behavior, the underlying causes, and how and when it escalate into physical violence.
> "I am a violence prevention minister and I know who causes violence in the world, it is white, cis men."
That may well be true, but its also true that the main victims of that violence are "white, cis men"
But people love to lump other people together by shallow characteristics because looking at individuals is hard, and looking at systems individuals live in.
In New Zealand it appears to be young adult women who are the main victims of violence. By quite a margin, like 50% more than men, which is probably enough to override any differences in reporting.
Reported sexual violence, where the ratio is about 40% male 60% female in NZ.
Looking at the UK for violence in general. 72% of homicide victims were male and 28% were female. Men accounted for a higher proportion of victims of violence with and without injury where the perpetrator was a stranger. Vast majority of knife crime victims are male.
Women tend to be victims of men they know. Men tend to be victims of men they don't know.
But sure, carry on with the "#AllWhiteMen" and "#MenDontCry" and victim blaming and other misanthropic nonsense.
I suspect you meant to type misandry rather than misanthropic, and further guess you have little to no exposure to the breadth and spectrum of domestic violence in New Zealand: https://youtu.be/x6tgOOWPMkQ?t=88
It's all the same, and thats why you kill the comments. You like to bundle "All Men" into one group and "All Women" into another because it's easier for you to work with generalisations.
Because more women suffer domestic violence, men don't suffer at all. Winner takes all etc.
Just ignore other forms of violence because it doesn't fit your nice easy groups.
It's completely unsurprising of course, we live in a polarised world.
It took me a while to realize, but Yahoo charts was showing 3% up from Jun 30 to Nov 2. Turns out there was a huge drop on day 1, so where you start counting _really_ matters!
Wait, we shouldn’t be basing our investment decisions today on data from the past and projections from people with a vested interest in the stock going up?
The entire post is heavily driven by this author's ideologies around what they believe to correct. I mean just look at the footer and tell me this is someone on a reasonable part of the political spectrum.
I'm hopeful Reddit will succumb to the same fate. There's too many power hungry people who capriciously control large elements of societal communication these days.
I agree with you, but Apple's monitor situation is letting everybody down. Not having a 32" monitor for professionals is frustrating. I am glad I bought my Pro Display XDR.
don't let it stop you, but don't conflate open source with open core or 'democratic governance' etc.
Open source is open source. publishing code.
it does not mean
- you need to respond to peoples PRS
- it does not mean you need a github
- it does not mean you need to provide ANYTHING to the user. No warranty.
- you do not need a mailing list
- you do not need governance
Do what you want, have fun, if you have peers or other people interested in your area, feel free to collaborate in the same way you would with pickup basketball at the park, play, have fun, and leave when you're done.
reply