That's only true in a theoretical sense. In practice capital needs to invest in the right things for that to happen, otherwise the people are better off working for their own immediate needs as subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers.
The rails api docs are also going through a redesign, you can see a preview of the next design in edge: https://edgeapi.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveJob.html
I think it’s a a change in the right direction that removes the “aggressive wall of text” on longer pages and looks great in dark and light modes.
Picking one point from there, possibly the one least connected to Signal:
> The focus on deepfakes in a vacuum is actually missing the forest for the trees, with the ‘forest’ being the fact that we now rely on five massive social media platforms as the arbiters.
I think the way legislators have come to understand media - at least by the way laws are being written - is that the collection, distribution, and filtering must happen on a single platform. So there's this attempt to force platforms to be the arbiters of truth.
But this is dangerous in several different ways:
1. It is impossible to be an arbiter of truth, it's a fundamental problem of epistemology that cannot be solved without perfect knowledge of the "real world", and so the platforms must necessarily be allowed to fail to some, or a large degree.
2. Having been given this impossible responsibility, the platforms are going to disallow/punish based on controversy, because their real problem isn't breaking the law, it's others bringing attention to where they're breaking the law.
3. In the meantime the platforms might offer some token resistance to these laws, but ultimately they will not say no to being handed the one tool that gives them enormous political and economic power, power which will protect them if the law comes after them.
These three points will keep reinforcing themselves to lock us into the information dystopia we're in today.
I don't think it's possible to preserve 1. freedom of speech, 2. protection from mis/disinformation unless the different layers could be forcibly separated. My current crackpot idea is that the distribution and filtering layers have to be broken up in a way that both forces information to flow freely, and allow consumers to protect themselves by consciously selecting and filtering their consumption in meaningful ways. Filtering providers cannot be given the power to control information supply for other filtering providers, which allows the market to abandon untrustworthy providers at will, and also gives the authorities the degree of power required to find bad actors and dispense meaningful punishments.
Being excessively reclusive needn't be a death sentence. Have you tried to transition to home-schooling[0], which might get the law off your back? If he is interested in gaming, perhaps he could try his hand at game development, or parts of it such as music or art. Spending a couple of hours each day working (with you perhaps) on some skills and then publishing something on itch.io - say a short PICO-8 game - might help open him up a little and give him some street cred with former friends and classmates.
Those books had tremendous impact. BBC Basic was the first programming language I ever saw, in a children's book in a library, years before I ever got to touch a PC. It made computers seem so straightforward that it felt natural to reach for one as a tool or a toy. I've only ever seen a BBC Micro in a museum.
Failure of imagination indeed. There's much more to energy than the regular usage cycle of the average electrical supply grid.
What if creating easily-fusable isotopes is the most efficient way to store "renewable" energy? Fusion is the most concentrated release of power humans are able to muster. What's to say such concentrated power will never be required for any purpose?
That's totally right, fusion might have it's uses in the future. For example, the goal it was originally intended to be used when first tokamaks were created: cheap production of large amounts of tritium, enabling more compact thermonuclear bombs producing much less fallout with very flexible yields.
Just not electricity production.
> If you see a three-syllable Chinese name, you can be confident that the two-syllable name is the given name, and the one-syllable name is the family name.
Statistically speaking one could be fairly confident, but as a rule it is wrong due to the presence of compound surnames.
The popup window login with the many different domains doesn't work with isolation on. Hope they don't take the random meeting name (the last anonymous option) away.
What are the insurance payouts like when plants like these are destroyed? Could those be manipulated to balance the risk motives for omitting or delaying mitigations when warnings signs appear? Or would that just encourage poor record keeping and falsifications?
