That may be slightly overstated, but use of lethal force to protect one's property is legal in Texas. Very recently somebody in Texas did kill somebody for stealing their truck, using airtags to find to track them down. Legally speaking, somebody showing up at your door with a gun to recover their phone may not be okay. Realistically, the law doesn't act until you're dead.
While it probably wouldn’t apply in this specific case, in Texas the Castle Doctrine describes circumstances where one could apply lethal force to defend one’s property
Can you explain how this has any relevance at all to going to someone else’s house and killing them because you wrongly think your cellphone is somewhere nearby?
As far as I can see the person who I was replying to is simply making this up.
> In what state is it legal to kill people for stealing your stuff?
In Texas, under certain circumstances, it is legal to kill people for stealing your stuff. This might be very different than the laws in the state that you live in (it certainly is for me in New Jersey) but it is the reality.
As I mentioned it likely wouldn't apply in this case.
As a side note, the Castle Doctrine does apply within one's vehicle. Presumably an argument could be made that if someone stayed within their vehicle while confronting the home owner the Castle Doctrine may apply. Admittedly that is quite a stretch and I have no idea if something like that has ever been tried in Texas courts.
> The Post reached out to Apple on Thursday seeking comment on Schuster’s predicament, and the company’s efforts to resolve it, and was awaiting a reply.
Yeah sure, expecting journalists to find a cause + fix for the trillion-dollar company's buggy software and _only_ call-out and amplify a commoner's struggle _after_ they figure it out sounds super reasonable. Totally.
Because you said "Expecting journalists to have an answer before writing a piece is very reasonable." - given the journalist did not have an answer, it implies you think the journalist should have had an answer before publishing
You said "Expecting journalists to have an answer before writing a piece is very reasonable.", implying it was reasonable to ask journalists to have an answer to the Q in the article. Sangeeth disagrees with you.
Yeah sure, expecting journalists to find a cause + fix for the trillion-dollar company's buggy software and _only_ call-out and amplify a commoner's struggle _after_ they figure it out [EDITOR: OPEN TAG ADDED BY REFULGENTIS]sounds super reasonable. Totally.[EDITER:CLOSE TAG ADDED BY REFULGENTIS]
Apple always has two choices. Adapt or die. They always respond in the same way. They adapt to provide integrated end user benefits from emerging technologies, and expose those technologies to developers on their platforms.
Depending on the payment mechanism the act of issuing a chargeback causes reputation loss. With enough cases you’ll get your account closed. I’ve seen this happen to people doing a few returns on Amazon, or issuing a few chargebacks on their credit card. All were totally valid, but the customer was deemed to be not worth it anymore.
They paid, so it’s reasonable to assume they prefer paying and having that checkmark over not paying and not having that checkmark.
I don’t think canceling the payment will get them there or in the (again, reasonable to assume) even better for them “not paying and getting the checkmark” state.
If we're trading catchphrases, here's one I prefer:
"In times of change learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer.
That said, I'd prefer it if someone addressed the point, which is that the analysis of what's possible dates from an earlier technological era.
If the contention is that technology doesn't change what's possible in society and that society will always be the way it is was for most of the 20th century, I think we can safely ignore that.
Nice try, dogma has nothing to do with studying outcomes, and dogma isn't what we're talking about.
The contention is if history has gone through multiple and innumerable cycles and has ended up at the same outcome multiple times before, given an infinite number of potential outcomes, there must be common principles that led to the clustering at that outcome.
If you choose to ignore what those conveniently documented outcomes were and by extension what led to them, can you exercise any reasonable control over something you have no knowledge of?
Would the statement, "This time will be different, have any credibility if you have no control or knowledge of the issues?
Everyone at some point will say anyone, anything, and nothing, and what is said will likely be less true than not true when it is not backed with support.
Rational and rigorous approaches from first principles lend credibility to something being potentially more true than not, and by the law of approximation we can improve these approches over time until we eventually get to the point of it being true.
Wouldn't you say its better to be true, than not true if you want to succeed and live?
Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.
To claim otherwise is simply discounting a large body of scientific work which is highly credible and supported, how can you claim doing so is credible in any way?
The second is just putting words in my mouth, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion about what I think based off our short conversation here.
I never said it, I never inferred it, it looks to me simply like a psychological projection you've made of something you think, Largely because I don't believe that in the slightest. Not in the slightest, and no rational person would.
So can you clarify 'specifically' what I said that made you think that?
> Its not a false premise, there has been many anthropological studies that form the basis for catastrophism, extinction and a changing earth, they have been backed up with evidence for hundreds of years.
Did these past catastrophes involve AI and computers?
> China is bordering Russia. If you think that somehow doesn't change the type of relationship both parties are forced to have you don't understand geopolitics.
Can you explain what you are thinking? One implication is that China is supporting Russia because they are afraid of a Russian military actin, but is that what you mean?
Basically it means you should be friendly to your neighbors.
To use a crude analogy - if you're in a apartment complex you would probably be nicer to your neighbor than if they lived in another building, and not literally next to you, right?
Russia, China and India are the three neighbors living in a triplex. Meanwhile the United States is in a mansion surrounded by a moat a mile away.
If one of your neighbors was beating up and stealing from another of your neighbors, are your really saying you’d cosy up to them? By this logic you’d expect Finland to be Russia’s best friend.
I am critical of the Chinese system of government, but I’d never think of them as cowards.
>By this logic you’d expect Finland to be Russia’s best friend
"Finlandization is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system. [...] The Finnish political cartoonist Kari Suomalainen once explained Finlandization as "the art of bowing to the East without mooning the West"." [0]
The Soviet Union's collapse allowed Finland to spread its wings a bit more broadly, but it's worth pointing out that yes, Finland was cozying up to the Soviet Union like mad, in order to best survive their physical proximity. The logic does seem to check out, at least while the bogeyman of the USSR still shambled around.
Is China cozying up to Russia? By what metric, and for reference, using the same metric, how much is the United States, and other countries "cozying" up?
Xi expressed China's unconditional support for Russia, and then Xi's foreign minister later came back and said that the unconditional support was actually conditional. So they are actually playing the whole conflict from both sides, which is much more of a traditional Chinese position.
Kind of like how (some) Republicans support Russia indirectly by criticizing the Ukraine war expenses from the USA's behalf, yet continuing to vote for the arms deals.
> Anyone saying "China also wants an empire" or "Empire is inevitable" is categorically wrong, though, or at the very least has not at all engaged with the essay above.
This is frankly, silly. The essay is just doublespeak.
If you can’t articulate clearly why it’s not in China’s interest to extend its influence throughout the world, it’s because you don’t have a coherent position.
For what it’s worth, I think most of the criticisms of the American system are valid, and the extent to which we are aware of them is because it’s founded on being open to criticism.
We’re faced with humanity being deeply flawed and not having developed a utopian system of government anywhere, ever.
A central question we are facing is - do we want a world in which governments can be criticized, or one in which such criticism is brutally repressed?
