Gutting education is part of the plan for any authoritarian takeover. Knowledge is power. Why give the people the power? How very unauthoritarian.

You expect to own your body? Hah, that’s cute.

Just wait for the enshittification of Neuralink.

It’s funny that with all our technology, paper is still the most durable storage medium (under normal conditions) that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.

Sophistication often creates fragility. The human mind marvels at sophistication naturally; appreciation for resilience usually only comes after that fragile thing has broken. Of course it’s too late by then.

All them young whipper snappers will continue to learn these life lessons the hard way, it seems.

Unfortunately, the fate of the world kinda rests on the outcome of this election. From Ukraine and Israel at a minimum, to severe climate change and WW3 at the extreme end. I hate it too, but this is just too big to ignore.

This is not how patents work. At all.

For one, patent owners are generally more than happy to license their technology to integrators, and even competitors, if there is money to be made.

More importantly, patents cannot be used to get exclusivity on products. Rather, patents can only protect novel approaches to how a product is made or served.

The patent system is designed to protect R&D costs exclusively, not some get out of jail card for anti trust. Of course, the patent office isn’t perfect, the system does get abused in anti-competitive ways. But in the end, it’s rare that that results in less consumer choice, because of licensing deals.

There is no rule that the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees.

I think this is debatable. If it was not, then the answer to OP’s question would be obvious, and this thread would be uninteresting. The words we use carry a lot of unwritten baggage.

This is what happens when stack overflow is used for training.

Your logic is sound, but backwards.

Marriage is more analogous to a birthday. (A personal change in status)

Wedding is more analogous to a birthday party (i.e. the event celebrating the change in status).

As you pointed out in your logic, the birthday gift isn’t really about the birthday party, just like the ring doesn’t commemorate the wedding celebration, it commemorates your new marital status.

Unless of course you are the kind of person that is so focused on the wedding celebration that you forget the reason why you are celebrating to begin with (spoiler: you are making a commitment and entering a new life stage).

I think OP is on to something.

Well put.

I think the desire for a national identity (Zionism) is fundamentally at odds with peaceful coexistence with neighbouring ethnic groups. Israel is definitely at a major disadvantage here. Most other ethnic groups have a “homeland” out of sheer geo-historical inertia. Though I wouldn’t call it a completely unique situation. We see the tensions arise from the protection (or lack thereof) of national identity all over the world to lesser degrees, especially as globalization creeps in.

And I can empathize with groups that feel marginalized because of it. Though I think letting it boil over into violence is definitely a step too far.

Besides, geography as a means of cultural protectionism may be an outdated idea. We can’t underestimate the importance of soft power for spreading cultural influence, and being in a state of constant conflict does not further that goal.

In summary, I think Israel’s actions are rational at a tactical level, but ultimately fail to address the big picture you lay out.

LLMs == AGI was and continues to be a massive lie perpetuated by tech companies and investors that people still have not woken up to.

“Conservative” means… to conserve. You (and everyone) gets more conservative as they age because you kinda want to conserve the status quo you, personally are used to.

Here’s the thing: with social progress, what you want to conserve is different from what the generation before the progress wants to preserve.

You are a conservative, as in conserving, of the progress that we have achieved. The “conservatives” you refer to, the “political right”, are not conservative. They are regressives, the opposite of progressives (though they might not like the connotation of that label, and will denounce it). These people would like to regress society to a time when these members of society had more consolidation of power (feudalism, fascism, racist/sexist segregation). Nothing “conservative” about that in terms of a human lifetime. In fact none of those people were around to experience what feudalism, fascism, segregation etc. was actually like. Many of these people may have been sold a lie by the 1% for the exclusive benefit of the 1%.

I suppose the perspective is relative. Frequent cancellations of trains is bad, but not as bad as no PT at all, as is all too common in US.

Non-boomer here, I hate squirrels.

If you try to grow your own vegetables, you too will come to hate squirrels. I promise. Ageism need not apply to squirrel hate or vegetable enthusiasm.

Thank you for contributing to make the fediverse a more interesting place.

I think the MAGA movement has convinced itself they are all upper class, or at least temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

They are “regressives”.

To answer your question “why only Quebec”, it seems it’s a law in response to the major data breach of Groupe Desjardins in 2019.

So basically, a law written in “blood”.

Protecting domestic industries from competing with China does nothing to strengthen it.

As both a scientist, and a carpenter, it’s a bunch of crap.

Most of the time**, judging involves determining the truth, and the critical analysis of the facts of a case.

The scientific method, at its core, is also a truth-seeking exercise, centered on the idea of failing to prove a theory wrong (“fail to reject the null hypothesis”). In lay terms, a successful scientists will proactively trial an idea against one or more opposing ideas. In doing so, a scientist takes the position of competing truths and systematically disproves them, because disproving bad ideas is easy. In a court of law, the same occurs when a piece of evidence is presented to counter an accusation or defense (like an alibi). Therefore, in both science, and in law, verdicts are achieved on the basis of “reasonable doubt”. Perfect proofs do not exist (yes, even in math, because of axioms).

**To be fair, there are different types of courts, with different functions. A supreme court will probably spend no time on examining evidence for example, where as traffic court will spend most of its time on evidence.

imagine their perfect house

No part of “imagining perfection” is found in the scientific method. This is some fictional view of how science actually works. If anything, it’s carpentry that involves “imagining perfection”, where a building plan is “perfection” and “imagining” is the boundary between the plan and the reality of trying to build to specification.

informed choice

The cookie popups that litter the modern web today are a great example why this is probably a bad idea.