You’re conflating a license to use something granted without charge and something actually free to the public. Licenses come with terms, public resources only come with social pressures of fair use.
It is unfair for SeriousCompany to pretend that resources it releases to the public (usually as a PR move or to advertise a paid product) must flatter their motives and the narrow confines of what they envisioned the public might use them for. That is wishing a free resource had a license when it only has a social contract. If the provider could set limits, it would no longer be free.
In such a world (which is, by any means likely ever to be available, impossible), we’d still run against the issue that the state has the authority to kill people. This world would also have to be free of political corruption, and be so politically stable that what constitutes a crime worthy of the death penalty could never change.
That’s one way to define “local,” and in fairness to you, it is the most popular. But the other way of looking at local production - not unlike times before globalized agriculture - had one’s diet actually match the climate available. Perhaps tomatoes don’t grow where you are, but surely something else did: very few places were founded without an agricultural/fishing base.
On a global scale, the huge (emissions) efficiency of loading a single enormous shipment of produce is only true on the receiving end, a number of farms far away all ran their own small deliveries to a depot for shipping at the start of the chain. There is no magic turbo-carrot-farm that harvests the world’s supply in one go.
Compromising informants working for a foreign government invading another foreign land is not a crime, nor much of a moral dilemma.
The risk inherent to collaborationism is also not one anyone but the informant must account for. Just as mercenaries operate in that same high-risk-reward / low-solidarity space, and accordingly join the cast of characters in war zones along with spies and informants without international sympathy.
The comparison to slavery is rather distasteful. Both by recognizing actual slavery and by the simple reality of public service being a profession, not a sentence. Your right to health compels tax resources to be spent caring for you, not enslaving people into free cardiology.
The practice of healthcare already comes with the understanding that all who seek treatment (resources permitting) will be treated, and the interrelationship between patient, hospital, doctor, and the duty to care is foundational to the right to healthcare. It is however not the point. EMTALA in the US could be further reading if you’re interested in how refusal of care works in practice re: funding.
As per law, in the hypothetical where no lawyer could be found to take the case and no public defendant compelled to, the situation merely continues with rights violation, instead with a delayed trial or excess imprisonment. Like all rights in general, the loss of one weighs on the rest as if a ball on a net.
The right to a gadget and the right to health are incomparable on a number of levels. Even besides that, women’s suffrage is less than a century old in most places, and just about in the rest. Gay rights are even younger. Health, women and gays have all existed since the dawn of time; the “when” in codifying rights has never really correlated with historical prevalence, only societal development.
> Negative rights feel good because they don’t infringe on anyone else, whereas a positive right always does.
The lack of positive rights infringes on a society’s own fabric, however. The right to a lawyer or legal counsel is a positive right born from the ideal of fairness under the law; I’m not sure framing the American (conservative?) character as so staunchly against positive rights is correct. Police protection is very popular with the right, and that necessarily involves the labour of others.
Society ensuring some minimum standard of health so that one may properly navigate life (and enjoy the rest of their rights) is framed as a right as health is a general precursor to everything else: it’s not that odd a framing, no?
“You have the right to vote, but not to live long enough to get to the polls” is the outcome of categorizing essential societal functions as somehow out of scope of what society should do. I think the average Republican gets that, though a lower tax bill is always the priority.
Ah! You’re your own Jerusalem; ever in the middle. :)
That does make more sense: unless I read you wrong, leftism wasn’t a real sway here - and that’s easier to square away. Leftist Zionism is (as far as I can tell), almost only advanced by Jews.
Neat, though I’m perhaps confused as to how you might even arrive at Zionism (a rather polar position to take).
US support, extraordinarily stalwart as it is, has shown its first cracks. Western allies are considerably less religiously motivated, or defense-industrial-linkage motivated, and can’t be counted on in the same way. Recent ICC news can be read as an indicator of prevailing winds.
The US is not above dropping allies when politically convenient, and as Israel burns its public image (or seeks geopolitical independence), both parties stateside can entertain anti-Zionism.
Watch what was previously far-left/right become normalized as legitimate considerations regarding US support of Israel. That Iran would entertain its recent long-range strike should tell of regional estimations of how likely the US would be to intervene, and then extrapolate from there.
Out of idle curiosity, how did you arrive at Zionism from a non-jewish and leftist background? That has to be one of the rarest identities to simultaneously associate with.
The degree of security theatre at airports aside, surely you don’t think public transit should suffer TSA-style security to warrant a solution to that self-imposed problem?
Have you considered leaving this society where people value libraries for one without taxes? It might suit you better.
As per tools, you benefit from having a community that doesn’t needlessly spend on tool duplication or rental, which ultimately concentrates local wealth. But that’s an economic argument when the real one is that it’s a desirable service for cost, convenience and community spirit.
Tab groups work better with OS functions than multiple windows past a certain number, which is generally dependent on the physical size of one’s screen(s).
Exposé on MacOS can get very, very cluttered with more than ten windows open from various apps, and distinguishing between them can be rather cumbersome if the content between the last opened tab of any given window isn’t visually distinct from another.
The same is true in Window’s implementation and in their taskbar preview feature.
The same is also true with tiling window managers, as every new window becomes something else to manage, where perhaps a “browser” slot should really occupy just one consistent tile.
Full-screen workflows (common on small laptops) also benefit from a singular “browser” screen, flanked by other applications instead of numerous windows whose minimization needs to be managed.
That, and managing tabs between windows is annoying, especially with rules to open a particular link within a given window, since that might break a setup as above. (Imagine a HN link summoning an entire separate window, reconfiguring your desktop setup, when the errant click could’ve just switched tab groups.
The “also” implies relatedness. It is a broader trend in the music industry. For a specific example with Spotify, you might recall the Drake promo debacle from 2018; where “Scorpion” was so thoroughly pushed on to users that refunds for Spotify Premium were demanded on the grounds that the degree of promotion crossed a threshold into outright advertising, which premium was to be free of.
In addition to other responses, know that the zero-note makes its way to the corrupt official's hands before they can inspect it. From their perspective, they've just completed an illegal act with someone willing to challenge their authority out of a sense of justice. What would you even do after receiving a zero note instead of a bribe as requested? So goes the example: of a smile and nothing more.
Deeply fascinated by “The world is facing a global pandemic that has caused a global pandemic. It is important to be honest and honest in the world we face. It is important to be honest and honest in the world we face. It is important to be honest and honest in the world we face.”
I’m surprised this didn’t engage or mention Architecture Uprising / Segregation by Design and other projects that have considerably more clout and legitimacy than random trad architecture Twitter accounts. Perhaps that would undermine the “both modernists and traditionalists are placeless” equivalence the article was intent on making, but in doing so missed most of the arguments about human-scale architecture and town design put forth by the “trad” side.
It is unfair for SeriousCompany to pretend that resources it releases to the public (usually as a PR move or to advertise a paid product) must flatter their motives and the narrow confines of what they envisioned the public might use them for. That is wishing a free resource had a license when it only has a social contract. If the provider could set limits, it would no longer be free.