I refuse to use VS Code on principle. It has captured a staggering percentage of software development, across many software disciplines. Somehow ARM/Keil has been persuaded to go all-in on VS Code and will deprecate their "legacy" IDE, which will cause trouble for any hold-out embedded firmware developers.
Where "curve" = "exporting shiny toys without thought to long-term consequences". Good to see the EU is finally catching up to the harms of this and other US web tech.
At 170Wh per kg (and ignoring the weight of the containers and any safety considerations), 20GWh of lithium battery would weigh 120,000 tons. This is a lot more than a typical Panamax DWT of 60,000 tons, which also needs to include the ship's fuel, provisions, crew, etc.
To illustrate, say you live inside a fenced-off city. You say you don’t discriminate, anyone is welcome to come and talk to and trade with you. Somebody points out that there are people outside the city, behind the fence, that aren’t able to come talk to you. You are free to act or not act on that, but speaking out against the one that merely points it out and tries to change it means you take an active position to support the current discriminatory situation, rather than a passive, opportunistic one that supports whatever the political situation happens to be.
All positions are valid positions to take. They do however reflect an active choice and an active act. All of them are political. All of them come from a position of privilege, being inside the city, not outside.
No-one is "speaking out against" the one who is pointing out any wider discrimination, beyond whatever aribtrary circle you choose to draw.
What is being "spoken out against" is the idea that taking the moral (or political) action within whatever circle you feel able or willing to support is insufficient, or even discriminatory in itself. After all, this is exactly how this conversation started. Good for you if you want to change the world - let's not forget 3rd party discrimination against other 3rd parties! For many of us, it's one of numerous pressing problems to be addressed. If you wish to bring privilege into it, having the freedom to make fighting any and all discrimination a primary concern is a sign of privilege that few have.
I am raised in hindu religion and we have a saying here basically meaning, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself and I am sure that literally every main religion and philosophy can kind of share the sentiment and create a tolerant society overall.
Shame that those same religions and people in power forget this core part I suppose. I think that the forgetfulness might be on purpose but I basically hope we can treat literally everyone others the way we wish to be treated ourselves, with dignity and respect.
Of course, some people who are clearly bad shouldn't be treated this way but I hope you can get what I mean by the general sentiment of this idea I guess.
Wow, I had just observed that this seemed very common in religions I didn't know I was this accurate as that was called the golden rule!
Now hearing it, I remember hearing something similar but thanks for refreshing and thanks for letting me know
Now that we are talking about golden rule, I often wonder, if this is the case, then why not skip all the other aspects of religion which were meant in tribal times or have issues which still persist to put more emphasis on this "golden rule"
So your belief is that anyone who would claim to treat everyone the same falls into that camp?
That's quite the characterisation to make, and a bit difficult in the context of discrimination which is based on lumping people together based on one trait and making assumptions about everyone in that group.
> People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.
No, we just left the Democratic party once you guys stopped being serious. Judging people based on the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character is just as toxic and evil no matter what your claimed motivation is.
Most people don't really endorse Trump or endorse everything the radicals on the right are known for, but I can see that it appears that way to the people pushing DEI and race-and-gender-based everything -- because a clear plurality have indeed rejected the Democratic party, resulting in them losing even when running against a corrupt buffoon.
That's easy to work out from the parent comment. They conclude that 16,000 tons of batteries are needed for propulsion, with a total capacity of 3GWh.
For a typical 40kton cargo ship, that leaves 24,000 tons for more batteries, for a energy cargo capacity of 4.5GWh. The average US citizen uses ~770,000 BTUs of energy per day, or 0.23MWh. This "energy cargo" of this ship would provide the entire energy needs of a city of 20k people for one day. (I am being a little unfair, by assuming that everyone uses electricity for all of their energy needs in this scenario).
>Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. Even if there are laws in place protecting such rights, people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched.
This supposed golden era of communication lasted for a very short period. Why is is so important that freedom of speech also be anonymous? What you're asking for is the right to talk to anyone with all societal, cultural, and interpersonal contexts removed.
It is not only freedom of speech, but freedom of association that would also be jeopardized.
People long ago used to have to hide that they're gay, not only because they could be ostracized, but that people they associate with could also be under scrutiny.
Being able to track one's movements, or who they associate with, could reveal information that said person would want kept secret.
There was a podcast episode I listened to once, probably Darknet Diaries but maybe some other tech one, where the person being interviewed was an active community member in some bbs back in the day. Everyone decided to meet up to play dnd, and he showed up as a 13 year old kid when everyone else was 20+. They let him stay after cleaning it with his mom.
This is one type of connection that would be unlikely to form if superficial anonymity is lost. That kid probably would be off in some "safe" walled garden.
This doesn't even touch on more obvious forms of discrimination like gender, religion, etc.
And political affiliation / speech isn't protected in the US, so an employer could term you anytime for policy disagreement. Such a policy would destroy the exploration of ideas overnight, as outrage mobs would try to get any dissident sacked.
If those are your concerns, then why is it so important that this freedom of anonymous expression only happens on the internet? I think what you are really asking for is private, encrypted comms but only to a certain subset of people. Otherwise, you should also argue for freedom of anonymous expression over any other medium.
And of course freedom of speech has practical limits. It's that very tempering that stops non-virtual discourse from turning into a cesspool. I worked for a company that permitted anonymous comments to the leadership team, which they would then review in front of the company. It was a total shit show, and I attached my name to any comments I made.
If you are not happy filling in your workplace questionnaire unless it's anonymous, then something needs to change about your company (and something that probably can't be fixed with anonymous comments).
I'm not asking for anything, I was merely pointing out the advantages of anonymity. You don't need to consider a decision the best one to see its upsides.
I don't really get the rest of that argument. What other mediums are legally deanonimised? Privacy in mail and telephone was a commonly supported right, Watergate was a scandal for a reason.
>If you are not happy filling in your workplace questionnaire unless it's anonymous, then something needs to change
That's the point I was trying to make, that it is a shortcut, but an improvement. Preaching a 'good option' that doesn't survive the real world is a common failure of justice systems.
Example: 'Anonymous tip off for sexual abuse' is a very flawed system. Tell the victims 'no, see, what you need is proper handling of abuse by authorities'. Is that useful when we know for a fact that alternative never worked?
Shortcuts should only be removed _after_ the proper alternative is in place and working. Otherwise, you're just making people lives worse.
> It's that very tempering that stops non-virtual discourse from turning into a cesspool.
Agreed, anonimity introduces many problems we haven't been able to solve properly yet. It can platform abusers. It can empower legitimately wrong behavior. It can make people less willing to take ownership of their actions, or less empathic.
Those are all legitimate points to consider and balance, I'm just not ok with pretending it's a no-brainer.
>I'm not asking for anything, I was merely pointing out the advantages of anonymity. You don't need to consider a decision the best one to see its upsides.
You haven't given any yet. You've pointed out that anonymous messages in some circumstances can be beneficial (which they can), but haven't given any advantages for a widespread, anonymous communications network with open access.
>Privacy in mail and telephone was a commonly supported right
It really wasn't. I don't know of any time or place where mail and wire tapping wasn't legal and/or practiced.
If only it were that simple. To fix the analogy, imagine that every other kids' dad left the liquor cabinet unlocked and allowed them to carry liquor around anytime they liked.
He's not wrong. Nothing has fundamentally changed in battery technology since 2020 - power densities are about the same. A "long haul" EV tractor unit gets about 500km range and weighs ~4 tons more than a diesel equivalent.
Further evidence that a national firewall is a prudent idea. What kind of careless government would permit anyone in the world to have unfettered, anonymous access to their citizens' thoughts and minds?
Green account with a low-effort sarcastic comment. Worthy not only of downvotes, but public derision.
Do you have any desire, or idea, on how to curb cyber-agitprop from enemy nations? Is living in a world with rampant, effective, agitprop on the internet with zero reaction the least of all evils?
It's a fair question. No, no desire to curb anything because of who is going to do the curbing. Any regulating entity (government or private) will use subjective judgement and will invariably devolve into censorship.
The concern of course is that humans as a crowd are dumb, but on the other hand I think you give individuals too little credit. A smart person won't get his/her political views from random X posts.
The problem is that most americans do not know first hand how the real censorship looks like. In the context of the previous discussion in that thread, chinese and russian firewalls block any discussion of gay rights issues. Do you think the US will be any different? We are all humans with the same deficiencies.
Any "firewall", however it is implemented, will be a double edged sword that will eventually start cutting one way, and you won't like the result.
To sum it up, yes, it's the least of all evils.
If you would like to deride the answer, I assure you I am quite immune to the effort.
I agree with your concerns but I am not sure that it is all or nothing, in the way that encryption security is, for example.
I think that agitprop campaigns are identifiable by the organizations on which they operate, and that site operators should consider that akin to spam and delete it.
Of course I do not advocate an actual firewall. We saw Instagram and the US try to censor the carnage in Gaza, and "allies" like Israel have acknowledged their desire to control the information space to suit their narrative.
I think what you are saying is still on a shaky ground if I understood you correctly. Site operators will have a political bias that will skew the decisions. And of course there is pay to play and kickbacks... integrity was for sale ever since humans existed.
Think in terms of what the internet gave us instead of what it has taken away. In my youth, I had to listen to shortwave to find the other side of the story.
Touched a nerve? I have quite a few gay and trans friends. They tend to agree with my views which is live and let live. Their lifestyle is not a problem, and they afford me the same courtesy.
Example of a neonazi who isn't white [1]. The Believer (2001, with Ryan Gosling) is a decent fictional movie about how this could work [2], and I also liked Rompen Stomper (1992, with Russell Crowe) [3] and La Haine (French for 'the hate', 1995, with Vincent Cassel) [4] about the phenomenon in general but there's likely more recent, good material as well as non-fiction available. I also had a colleague student who was IMO racist, but he was himself what we in NL call halfbloedje (in this case: mother black, father white, divorced).
The specific example I cited was the "we are coming for your children" chant in NYC, which is way beyond demanding to "live and let live". Things like this give an insane amount of ammunition to the anti-gay movement. You are lying by twisting my words, thankfully, the posting history is all there for everyone to see.
I always supported equal rights and dialogue, and voted accordingly. That's why I do have problems with militant individuals like youself that create a complete mockery of the issue by refusing to think, resorting to insults, eating their own and actually causing the real harm to any rights movement. Who would want to be in the same voting block with someone who seems to be off the rails?
Of course you will next say that you don't believe me and will pull more proof from wiki, but I don't give a flying duck. Bye.
reply