Yup. The actual sources of world hunger aren’t material but systemic. So it’s not as easy as just “giving everyone food”, but the more complicated “give everyone access to a robust agriculture supply chain”.
Fortunately, giving 1-2% of people fertilizer and some work animals might be a bit more complicated, it’s significantly cheaper.

Only for write operations. Reads are effectively free, and cached files are invariably predominantly read heavy.
Even then, the wear effects of writes on SSDs are exaggerated. Improvements in the technology and wear leveling have made them roughly as reliable as spinning disk.

For a phone, the storage is expected to remain viable beyond the expected usage lifetime of the device. It doesn’t really matter if caching wears storage a little faster if the device is inoperable before it’s a problem.

I mean… Caches, logs, and other system data currently in use by the system is a fairly decent explanation. Computers need space to put stuff while it’s working. It’s not particularly odd to not go to extremes labeling the contents of the junk pile that’ll get discarded if anything comes up.

Linux is about as open as a system can be and it has several piles of roughly undocumented junk that can be difficult to know exactly what they contain.

There’s nothing about it to “not trust”. If it wanted to hide something from you it wouldn’t tell you it was there and refuse to explain fully, it would just not tell you at all. It’s not like you can check it’s work.

Eeeh. First, “mad tyrant” is a bit of a stretch. The crown was, by the standards of the time, much more lax with the colonies than other territories. More of a “late onset bipolar disorder constitutional monarch acting under advisement of qualified ministers”. Breaking away to try “not monarchy” and implement much of what we now consider modern government was by no means wrong, but it’s not quite the clear cut battle against evil the founding narrative describes.

Second, that was 250 years ago. Just about the only lingering effect is the slogan which has some inspirational qualities.

The bigger thing is that the military hasn’t fought against a technological equal in decades, and has never fought an asymmetrical war against a technological equal. If the opponent is close to technological parity, they use overwhelming force to remove that parity, and then fight from there. They can’t do that against the US, because they need those resources as well. Additionally, most of our defensive strategy relies on it being impossible to attack us in a reasonable way. The only force that can get here has to be small and sneaky. In a civil war situation, a significant number of military facilities are basically inside cities. They have defenses, but not the way they do in an overseas base. And being in cities, a significant number of pretty important sites are inside the areas that are currently being designated as hostile.
All the people doing the boring logistics and paperwork that drives most of the US military have to commute through the dangerous areas. Most of their families live nearby.

You do know that Puerto Rico has voted to stay, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_political_status_for_Puerto_Rico

They’re Americans in the way that they’re fully enfranchised US citizens in every way.

Up until the 1960s they had the same legal status as residents of Washington DC. The only reason it hasn’t changed is because they’ve consistently asked for it not to.

Are you hoping Puerto Rican terrorists killing mainlanders will cause Puerto Ricans to vote for independence?

Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
“Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.

Exactly. If you’re apologizing, apologize. There’s nothing wrong with also asking to have a conversation about what caused the conflict.

“I’m sorry” and "can we talk about what happened?” are both valid, but ultimately aren’t dependent on each other.

To make it even more WTF, the religions they have the most issue with don’t even have a different diety, just different people saying he told them an updated message on the rules of life.

Israel is required to exist for some interpretations of Armageddon in the Bible. They hate them, but they need Israel to exist because it’s central to moving forward with the end of the world and their gods cleansing of the forces of evil and the ushering in of a new world order.

So keep that fun fact in mind when you hear Christians being really pro Israel.

Ah, alright. :) sometimes these things are hard to tell in text.

I wouldn’t say it’s ignoring it. I’m incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I’m not as bothered by it happening: it doesn’t have real consequences.

If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can’t get around. You can’t go to a platform that doesn’t mind and keep going.

If the government leans on a company, first of all that’s still government censorship and it’s not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it’s still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there’s not really anything they can do.

There’s a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.

I’ve worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you’re willing to take that support request or if you’re letting your manager know you’re not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don’t want to help you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it’s wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.

I’m not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.

My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it’s wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don’t think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it’s still a political position and protected. But if the people you’re paying to host your shit don’t want anything to do with you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I don’t think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.

I also don’t think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.

I think there’s a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren’t welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there’s no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.

The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.

It doesn’t impact my reply, but I figured I’d let you know. :)

I’m against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche “you can’t threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods”.

I’m okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren’t a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what’s in your package, beyond what’s necessary to move it safely.
If you’re needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.

I don’t want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There’s plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.

I think you missed that the next portion of their statement was connected to the part you (inappropriately) added the missing word to.

They’re saying, essentially, that it’s important to learn math just for a rounded education, even if it lacks application. They’re saying closer to “even if we’re eating sushi, we still need fire”.

There’s a lot of different things that get pumped into “intelligence”. There’s “reasoning ability”, “knowledge”, “wisdom”, and a whole host of others, some in the category of traditional intelligence, and others around things like emotional intelligence.

Raw knowledge is something that schools can teach through memorization. You have facts. Memorization isn’t the best way to do it, since context and such can often make information stick better, but some things you’re eventually going to memorize, intentionally or not (I don’t calculate 6*6=36 every time).

Reasoning or analytical ability is much harder to teach, since you can’t really make someone more able to have insights and such.

Wisdom is something that can be trained I’d phrase it. I don’t think you can be taught it like you can a history lesson, but it needs to be trained like a sport. How to apply reason to a situation, how the knowledge you have relates to things and other bits of knowledge. Which things are important and which aren’t.

It sounds like you’re mostly taking what I’ve called wisdom, with a dash if introspection tossed in, which can play very well with wisdom. “How sure am I about this?” Is a question wisdom might make you ask , and you need to know yourself to know the answer.
Knowing how to question the right part of something, so that you’re not getting caught up in the little inconsistencies and missing the big one, or considering the wrong facts that are unimportant to a situation.
(A pet peeve of mine) Sometimes people will bring up statistics of race in relation to crime. People with perfectly good reasoning ability and knowledge will get caught up debating the veracity of the statistics, or the minutiae of the implications of how other statistics interplay to lead to those numbers, both in an attempt to deny the conclusion of the original argument.
The more wise thing to do is to question why this person is making the argument in the first place. Use your knowledge of society to know there are racists who want to convince others. Your reasoning to know that someone more interested in persuasion than truth can twist numbers how they want. Reject their position entirely, instead of accepting their position as valid and arguing their facts.

Except that with the website example it’s not that they’re ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It’s that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click “I want it!”. The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That’s not theft, it’s a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn’t navigate to an unlinked page they didn’t tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you’d rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn’t work because it’s not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone’s property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. It’s odd for a clock to act this way, just not inexplicable. At best it’s an example of UI standards being applied without regard to sense, which is very much in line with Microsoft.

Most other clocks will do something similar, they just do it in the background. Something that’s a lot easier to do if you’re not following a UI framework that says you’re never allowed to change something in a way that might cause the user to see a weird shift. Other things just acknowledge that clock sync should only take a few milliseconds before the clock is even visible, that a timezone DB update will rarely cause a change of more than an hour, and that a user will probably not even notice if there’s a shift.

It makes sense in a weird way, but it doesn’t feel right for a clock. You need to account for the case where it does take longer than it should to update, because sometimes it will for any number of really weird reasons. So you can’t just design for the best case scenario.
Now that you have a splash screen you need to ask yourself if it’s better to show the splash screen while doing the update, or to just let the app be unresponsive for the common case of a moment and then show the splash if it goes over that.
The answer is to show the splash in the common case too.
Now people are seeing a “weird screen” for a moment before they can process what they’re seeing. So you need to make the screen have a minimum display time to keep people from being confused.

It’s weird, but people can sometimes be more confused by thinking something happened too fast.