It's more of a humorous situation to imagine, however with respect to the "oh it's normal comment".
No industry with a very limited number of suppliers and with a huge lead time, capex, and tech expertise moat to build a semiconductor fab would ever note that the price of their product has a demand curve that while not a delta function is very steep around fixed maximum production of themselves and all the other suppliers, and that being on one side of that threshold makes all the suppliers poor or just enough money to stay in business vs rich.
How many RAM suppliers are there? Obviously due to the situation we all are in not enough to make the supply curve a very smooth function in response to demand.
Haha, jokes on you: only the cultures of the world that think that or that have the values that cause that will eliminate themselves, to be survived by everybody else that didn't have which ever deadly thought viruses that cause their decline.
Ah well, in reality the utilities try to raise the rates as much as they think they can get away with each year (they are limited only by what the respective state public utilities commissions allow), and this provides a convenient justification.
RPKI plus ASPA does solve the hijack problem by securing both the origin of a prefix and the AS path of a route.
Yes ASPA is new. Reference implementations in open source routing daemons and RPKI tools are being developed and rolled out. If you want to be a pioneer you can run a bird routing daemon and secure the routes with ASPA. Only experimenters have created ASPA records at this point, however once upon a time we were in the same position with RPKI.
In a system of socialized medicine, is the goal of society to spend the money available to save the most people?
Taking into account that people have the greatest medical costs near the end of their life, should the system save others by limiting either the total available spend or the cost of any particular treatment according to some metric?
Should the system repeatedly and frequently remind people that are older and alone in the world without support from friends or family that euthanasia is an option?
How often reminding them would be considered coercive?
Is it coecerive if the system decides if you are over 70 years old that euthanasia is the only option you get offered when your condition is one of a long list of non trivial chronic conditions?
What if we find that in practice (as we almost certainly will if we dare to look honestly) people of certain genders, ages, ethnic groups, economic demographics, are more frequently told that killing themselves is an option they should seriously consider, compared to how often it is recommended to the general population?
Should the suicide prevention hotlines be shutdown and instead become suicide suggestion hotlines?
What about cases like chronic depression?
I'm just asking questions from a hacker perspective when people are busy considering offering euthanasia to everybody (sometimes advocating at every age) is some kind of virtuous undertaking.
People don't consider that throughout society in all walks of life and occupations some portion of people are sociopathic and pyschopathic (possibly with uneven distribution), and some plan administrators, whether that be socialized medicine, or large corporate insurance providers, will interpret their incentives to either their own benefit and/or the benefit of their organization, completely at odds with what you might consider the interests of the individual.
Isn't this overcomplicating it? Euthanasia doesn't require advertising, it seems like people yearn for it even in places where it isn't allowed. The point is that it should be a legitimate choice, not a suggestion by society. Just like your doctor doesn't tell you that it's probably time for you to become a parent, no doctor should recommend you to be gone.
"Last summer, Global News first reported a case where a veteran claimed to have been pressured by a veterans affairs case worker to consider medically assisted dying."
Normally one might consider the political spectrum to go from the liberal stance of "It's all society's fault that you are how you are" to the conservative stance "It's all your fault you are how you are", with the practical situation being somewhere in between on a case by case basis.
However, things like drug decriminalization bring out further extremes, with extreme liberals espousing you should be able to do anything you want (even if you become a hazard to your community) and extreme conservatives feeling you should do what you want and the weak should die and the strong should live.
Only centrists and perhaps realpolitik people see all highly profitable addictive drugs that destroy the lives of the users as not some kind of accident on an individual basis and instead a super successful subscription business model with negative externalities that they would rather not suffer the side effects of as a community. Alas this view seems to not get so much airtime, and just ends up being a matter of fact as things play out.
To all the it's been illegal for over 100 years and it hasn't got any better school of thought people, so has murder. Were we expecting the nature of people to evolve in 100 years?
Seriously wondering from the perspective of choices of how to do things. Do we want to try to get the best result for the most people? How many false positives or false negatives do we want?
Ok, thought experiment. The people that inspect buildings can condemn them.
How would you like a system to develop in the city that unless you bribe city officials they each year randomly choose some local owners with buildings to condemn and then hint that they should be bribed. Of course to make it plausible, they choose buildings that they can come up with some kind of justification for.
Naturally, since they are that creative, this would develop into a system where they make buildings develop all kinds of inspection problems that they wish to take for their crime ring. A very common super broad area is ADA compliant ramps, markings, entrances, bathrooms. The building code has changed over the years and within a building department and between cities what the inspectors expect you to do wildly varies. When you go to get totally unrelated work done an inspector or the planning department can require you to make ADA upgrades.
Over time it is natural for some portion of the building stock to require work in the form of maintenance for just about every aspect of the buildings. Think of all of the opportunities they have to get your generous endorsement in the form of money, since this in this world you've created city officials demanding money is totally fine.
Pray any building or business in the city doesn't attract their attention!
I tried this once but the layers of government you have to bribe becomes overly burdensome after awhile; first it was city planning officials, then the volunteer run “housing board” and associated nonprofits. Then there was a county restriction on vacation rentals that I had to talk to a sheriff to get around, a contribution to the governor’s re-election PAC, then the DOJ (and it’s not enough to bribe DAs anymore, you have to bribe FBI officials too). By the time I had bribed 48 layers of government bureaucrats I didn’t have enough money left to build my housing development. The system is broken.
Just a like the saying "Fish don't know they're in water", people within different groups have cultural assumptions, in this case: The idea of "Permissionless innovation" vs what I like to call the idea of "Permissionful innovation'.
In the permission less school of thought, you don't need permission to use an existing API or data to do whatever you want as long as it isn't abusing the service or illegal.
In a permission full school of thought, you should always ask permission, from the authorities and whoever might have a vested interesting what you are doing.
It seems that in Europe it is far more common that many (most?) people expect you to get permission before you go off writing your random programs and putting them live on the Internet.
Where as in some other countries, people view pushing half baked ideas live as virtuous and artists manifest destiny and/or a existentially important economic function of startups.
When people from different cultures interact and they have completely different unspoken assumptions it can result in misunderstandings. In my case, the correct thing to do was apologize for the misunderstanding (definitely not arguing, you would never convince them to change their core cultural values!), and then not use the specific service or company involved (that had intractable permission issues due to any member being able to deny permission), and just work with other services that had no built in conflicts with the fundamental purpose of their service. (Organization names and the services involved redacted for courtesy.)
> It seems that in Europe it is far more common that many (most?) people expect you to get permission before you go off writing your random programs
No. In Europe it literally is what you pretend to be permissionless: "you don't need permission to use an existing API or data to do whatever you want as long as it isn't abusing the service or illegal."
Whereas permissionless is really just doing whatever, consequences be damned
Ok, then do they need to be truthful about anything?
How about giving themselves credit for extra clicks based on the value of the word? (With the defense they are doing it for you!)
What about if they switch to a click tracking system that uses statistics (so they can use the defense that the method is just inaccurate and they aren't lying), which just happens to over counts clicks?
How about charging you based on very erroneously projected traffic (one further than the step above, basically projecting the future very genrously in their favor) and not actual traffic?
What about if they enable the same third parties to both participate in an ad exchange as a seller and a buyer, with real time bid information, such that they can place phantom bids to up advertisers spend, just like HFT dark pools?
I could go on, every thing is all good, right? No guarantees?
Which ways is it ok if they misrepresent, overcount, badly estimate, fail to deliver, bill based on future estimates, and otherwise enable third parties to steal from you are ok?
No industry with a very limited number of suppliers and with a huge lead time, capex, and tech expertise moat to build a semiconductor fab would ever note that the price of their product has a demand curve that while not a delta function is very steep around fixed maximum production of themselves and all the other suppliers, and that being on one side of that threshold makes all the suppliers poor or just enough money to stay in business vs rich.
How many RAM suppliers are there? Obviously due to the situation we all are in not enough to make the supply curve a very smooth function in response to demand.