Most rights end at a nation's border and most rights are a balance of conflicting interests. The former may be wrong, but it is the way of the world. The latter means that one person's rights may have to be restricted to protect the rights of another. Failing to recognize this by painting everything as contrasts is your choice, but it most certainly does not mean you are right.
Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.
Fundamentally disagree. Locking citizens in their own homes nationwide is terrible precedence for “balance of rights”. If that’s what “balance of rights” looks like then I have a history book to sell you.
I am trying to figure out whether you are arguing that rights must be absolute or that rights do not exist. If it is the former, I will point out that the rights of one person can infringe upon the rights of other people or the rights of one person can be used to repress other people. Simply put, rights are never absolute. In the latter case, I will simply point out that rights are a social construct. As a social construct, they very much exist yet society will be in an eternal struggle to define what rights are.
At the most basic level: if people don’t leave, they can’t come back with the virus.
Also, we’ve instituted mandatory hotel quarantine for anyone coming to Australia. But hotel quarantine only has a certain number of places; if less people leave Australia, then less people will come back and fill up hotel quarantine spaces.
I think the real reason is even more nefarious - by making this change they are dissuading expats from coming back at all. Why come back and use up a quarantine slot when you know you'll have trouble leaving again. Better just skip Christmas this year (again).
Indeed. It’s kind of amazing that Singapore, often accused of being overly authoritarian, took a much softer approach to Covid than Australia.
You could always leave. Citizens and PRs could always come back (although if they left after a certain date they had to pay for their care if they got Covid).
Even immigrants workers could leave. You needed permission to come back, but unless Covid was raging they took in quite a lot of workers.
This is true however return for foreigners was never guaranteed. It has opened up only very recently. I've been stuck in Singapore for 2 years as of last weekend.
Sure, but plenty of foreigners have left and returned and many new foreigner workers have entered.
You are right there was no guarantee you could return if Covid cases exploded, but there was at least a decent pathway. Australia from what I gathered put up as many obstacles as possible AND requires permission to leave.
Nope - because the rich are all sorts of capable of being granted the 'exemptions' to do as they wish anyway. (I'm an Australian citizen with family in Melbourne who has lived in the US for 15 years).
Exemptions have been granted for people who were told "if you can fly charter, not commercial, you can be exempted", and other things that are (while certainly risk reducing) very much "show me the money". i.e. exactly the people who will be engaging in tax minimization/avoidance/dodging.
Me? Best hope my elderly parents don't get unwell.
I have mocked the anti-maskers and especially anti-vaxxers, but this crosses a line on the other end of the spectrum.
I would only support an actual ban on mobility if it were to quarantine the virus in one place, like if the Chinese had locked down Wuhan before it managed to get out.
That ship has sailed of course. It’s all over the damn place, so there is not much to be gained by travel bans.
Personally unemployment insurance does not cover my rent. It’s enough to stretch out savings dramatically, but saving on food budget would then be even more important. Especially if you’re considering cashing in some 401k stocks in a down market.
It's extremely unlikely your landlord is going to be able to rent it to someone new in the foreseeable future. Most landlords are highly leveraged and need income.
Make an offer to cut it in half and see if they bite.
I own several rental properties, and I’ve already told my property managers that I’m receptive to rent reductions - less rent still beats an empty property. Any landlord who expects to get through this without a reduction in income is just delusional.
I don’t know what it is, but it seems commercial landlords would rather have an empty property than accept market rent in a down market. I saw a lot of that in the last recession.
I suspect that the managers of REITs and partnerships that own most commercial property worry that accepting lower rent would make it harder for them to delude their investors into thinking their property values haven’t tanked. “We appraise this property based on a rental income of $5k/mo, it’s just between tenants right now”
I think it's sometimes because they see the value of future higher rent after a void is worth more, in straight up cash value, than accepting lower rent with a long term commitment.
I've seen it for years: Empty shop buildings, a glut of local businesses wanting to rent them, but they are kept empty until some chain willing to pay double turns up a year later. For the landlord, it's worth waiting if that will be the outcome.
Please stop this. This is a huge violation of your friend's privacy. Just because a friend has shared something with you on facebook doesn't mean they expect it to be in someone's personal cambridge analytica forever.
I'd be curious to hear from other people with similar viewpoints, but I personally disagree. Cambridge Analytica was bad because it was a third party receiving data from others, and those people had zero reason to think that their data would ever be shared with a third party. In this case, all of the data I've obtained is either public, or was explicitly shared with me by those people in the first place. If you're arguing that I shouldn't be able to hold data that someone else wants removed, then I'd ask at what point we should be deleting your memories of events that someone else wants repressed.
To be clear, if I want to create the equivalent of a data-hoarder bunker, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I do, however, agree that sharing things with people that couldn't see it themselves (expanding the original audience) isn't something anyone should ever do. I'd also like to point out that once someone removes something from Facebook (or any other service, for that matter), the authenticity of copies of that information is now debatable - I could scrape a bunch of stuff and show people, but you have no way of proving whether or not that information is authentic. For all you know, my script makes any posts%5 super racist.
People post on facebook assuming the privacy model of facebook, where they have revokable control of who sees what they share. What do you think your friends would say if you told them you're keeping a personal copy of their photos even if they try to delete them?
I've actually shown this project to several people with varying degrees of technical knowledge. The technical people have generally already considered the privacy implications of what they've shared on the internet, fully expecting most things to become public thanks to crappy code/policies. They're usually more interested in what a rewrite of TAO looks like, or how you decompile rendered frontend code back into accessible JSON.
As for the less technical people, they tend to be significantly more annoyed at Facebook when I tell them that their old comment threads / messages are likely incoherent junk.
The friend published on an Internet public platform and added metadata to tag ancestor poster.
Where is the reasonable expectation of privacy?
If you share anything at all over Facebook, you should expect it to be in someone's personal dossier of you, forever. It's not always going to be just the people who know you and presumably bear you good will, either.
That's exactly why I don't post photos on Facebook.
Please tell me how you expect to enforce such laws without intrusive surveillance on everyone's networks and storage that would entirely defeat the purpose of having them.
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Even if Alice sends a file to Bob that is entirely safe from Eve while in transit, Alice has no recourse whatsoever from within the channel if Bob then turns around and just hands it over to Eve once he recovers the plaintext. Facebook is an untrustworthy recipient. Once you hand over any data, you lose your absolute control over them.
They have the capability to hand over your data to untrusted third parties, there are no safeguards in place to prevent them from doing so, no surveillance in place to detect when they have done so, and no effective recourse for any individual who feels that they may have been injured by it. We have sufficient evidence to believe that Facebook has done it in the past (Cambridge Analytica being just one well-publicized example), without even needing to know whether it was intentional, accidental, or paid business. I therefore conclude that they are still doing it now, and will continue doing it in the future.
Anything you say or do or remember in front of Facebook can and will be used against you in the court of commerce. The machines will process it all to squeeze the pennies out, and your privacy is an issue only insofar as it may impede the flow of data you willingly hand over to them in the future.
The friend shared with Facebook, and Facebook intends to store the data forever. The friend shared via Facebook with the GP, and GP could go and read/view the data as often as they wished via Facebook.
Yes, GP shouldn't subsequently share this data with other parties, and GP should take care to secure this data. But why shouldn't GP store the data for their own use, though? Is this any different than archiving emails from the friend?
When you share something, whether it's publicly or within a closed loop of social media, it is inherently not within your control anymore. You can NEVER create any kind of guarantee that clicking "delete" erases every potential copy of the data. Folks need to have that in the front of their mind when they create and share data on the internet. Full stop.
Now, morally, I could maybe understand where you're coming from. It's more of a "jerk move" than it is subverting a technical promise.
But I backup my Telegram messages occasionally through their data export tool. Are you proposing that I cross-reference my own backups with messages that get deleted from our chats? Same thing with WhatsApp.
Assuming I'm not commercially monetizing those backups, I consider it well within my rights to have a copy of conversations I've held with people in the past. And in fact, it may be by design that I don't want them to manipulate the "cloud copy" of our conversation in the future.
We're talking correspondence logs, not private investigators. Similarly, GDPR applies to a company tracking birthdays but not the one on your toilet. That your visitors can see all your friends' birthdays is not a personal Cambridge analytica, that comparison doesn't make any sense.
Should I delete that we talked to each other today in a few days when it is no longer relevant? As it is, this will be here in perpetuity, doesn't that seem dangerous as well? (I'm genuinely curious where you'd draw the line since your example isn't in line with what virtually anyone else would feel.)
I imagine if you took a look at total compensation (vacation, PTO, insurance, maternity leave), stronger labor laws and other societal benefits such as cheaper college, those workers earning €11/hr would probably be able to save a lot more of it compared to their counterpart in the US.
And bonus if they get sick, they don't have to worry as much about losing their job and spiraling down into crippling debt.
That's similar performance to NASA's Gipsy solver and a couple other PPP solutions.
The practical problem is PPP falls apart when there's any sort of multipath or noise, with will be the case for any receiver not in a completely open field. A single nearby tree is often the difference between 4cm accuracy and a meter.
Amazon changed this because many recent lawsuits have used the fact there's no direct buyer seller relationship to argue Amazon should be liable for defective products instead of the seller.
> How many billionaires are homeless after their ventures implode?
Has this happened in recent memory, at all? Because when I was growing up and getting the pro-capitalist America view of things on the regular, I vividly recall that capitalism is all about your success individually, that you risk it all and if you lose, you lose.
Even Elizabeth Holmes, an entrepreneur* who's business not only failed, massively, not only caused a man's suicide, not only lost fortunes both public and private, all without ever producing a SINGLE FUNCTIONING OR USABLE PRODUCT, she left a rich woman if I'm not mistaken.
*I was gonna quote that word here but no, I'm not going to because the mythical status of these people in American society is a joke. Anybody can be an entrepreneur. There are no qualifications and no requirements and you cannot break someone's faith in the "mythical rich 1%" than having them work for one, directly for a year, and see how maladjusted, how emotionally vulnerable, and how utterly dependent they are on subordinates for even trivial tasks.
What makes you so confident? I think the current belief, as decided in Lenz was that the law requires copyright holders to consider fair use before filing a takedown notice:
"The panel held that the DCMA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law."
Lawyers are court officers and are duty bound not to advance frivolous or false claims. They can be charged with barratry for violating their oath in this regard.
No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country.
Meanwhile, in Germany and France nearly 30% of the total cost of rail service is directly covered by the government, and it’s still more expensive than flying.
> No taxes on fuel isn’t a subsidy, there’s a natural race to the bottom on fuel prices because airlines can easily put more fuel in in a cheaper country.
There is not, simply because the maximum take-off weight is way larger than maximum landing weight - you can't just shuttle around fuel because you can't land the plane when it's loaded. This is also the reason why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing. While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
> why airplanes have to dump fuel when emergency/unplanned (e.g. due to medical emergency) landing
Though perhaps that's not the best example - for a really urgent medical emergency where every minute matters, an overweight landing would certainly be considered ahead of wasting precious time dumping fuel. Equally, there are a few more other types of emergencies where you'd want to get back onto the ground ASAP even if that means exceeding the maximum landing weight.
> While the passengers may survive a full weight landing, the plane will incur heavy damage.
At least these days, all aircraft certified under Part 25 must be able to land at maximum take-off weight with a descent rate of 6 ft/s (360 ft/min), which is already at the border towards what would be considered a hard landing (at maximum landing weight, planes need to allow a landing with 10 ft/s / 600 ft/min without structural damage).
So of course you still need to consider whether the changed performance characteristics (approach speed, required runway length, climb gradient for go-arounds, etc.) at MTOW will still allow you to land safely in that specific situation, but fear of "heavy damage" is not something you need to consider.
You might want to bring the plane down a little even more careful than usual, the brakes certainly have to work harder and maybe the plane needs to be inspected afterwards just to be sure, but otherwise you should be fine.
That's not how it works. Arbitraging fuel isn't as easy as driving to another state/indian reservation and buying cheap gas. Planes have maximum rake-off and landing weights. All that extra fuel you're carrying is freight that you couldn't carry. Planes carrying too much fuel (typically because they're making an emergency landing shortly after take-off) have to dump their fuel to meet their maximum landing weight.
It's still a subsidy (if the rail traffic is taxed and not supported by govt), except that it's a weird kind of subsidy that's near impossible to eliminate.
Also not necessarily true, you can't land a big plane with too much fuel.
Direct Air Capture can pull carbon out of the atmosphere for ~$200 per tonne. Flying generates about 0.1 tonne per passenger-hour. We can make flying carbon neutral and it'd only be ~20% more expensive.
