> You can't expel people for 'working like they do in the real world'.
You totally can, though. In the real world if I can't remember something, I might look it up in a textbook. Closed-book tests have historically been a totally accepted practice, though, and getting caught bringing notecards with textbook info secretly into a closed-book test would absolutely bring about disciplinary action.
It would, yes. There's large worker/union pressure in many of these fields to not take away overtime by reducing hours, though, since it is such a huge part of total compensation.
It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.
I don't think the parent is even saying that, their point is pretty reasonable: having some objective measure for before and after in any study is more reliable than self-reporting, especially when the subject might be incentivized to lie.
The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.
This seems to have the positive effect that patching applications on your own device (a la Revanced patching Spotify) appears blessed, since government prosecution would need to demonstrate a public interest case, if I'm reading this correctly.
In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need!
In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.
In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.
> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?
Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
I don't think the author was arguing at all that these things should be illegal, more just that there should be more consideration of other people's preferences where possible.
It's also legal to play an annoying song on repeat all day on a quiet hiking trail, but people (rightfully) recognize that as improper socially.
It isn't feasible to audit every line of every dependency, just as it's not possible to audit the full behavior of every employee that works at your company.
In both cases, the solution is similar: try to restrict access to vital systems only to those you trust,so that you have less need to audit their every move.
Your system administrators can access the server room, but the on-site barista can't. Your HTTP server is trusted enough to run in prod, but a color-formatting library isn't.
> It's not feasible for me to audit every single one of my dependencies, and every one of my dependencies' dependencies
I think this is a good argument for reducing your dependency count as much as possible, and keeping them to well-known and trustworthy (security-wise) creators.
"Not-invented-here" syndrome is counterproductive if you can trust all authors, but in an uncontrolled or unaudited ecosystem it's actually pretty sensible.
Safety and utility can often be at odds. Sometimes safety concerns outweigh utility, sometimes they don't.
For instance, car accidents are an incredibly prevalent cause of death, and even though we had methods of transport before (and in many places, better methods even today), the convenience and ease that cars bring is largely deemed to outweigh the risks in most places (though note that there has been a constant drive toward reducing those risks, without giving up cars altogether).
A meaningful downside to something is an important perspective, but arguments about upsides are also always worth considering.
For the pans in particular, consider that alternative cooking methods may have required much more manual effort to perform or clean, or that they were more difficult to exercise well. There are tradeoffs around people cooking at home less if cooking is less convenient, up against the risks of harm from the things that make cooking convenient.
Not saying one side or the other is right, but the arguments are basically always worth at least considering, even in the face of really strong counter-arguments.
Legitimately not trying to be coy, but would you consider a game like Fortnite to be an instance of "lock-in" for teenagers? For instance, a teenager might say:
1. Fortnite doesn't have an iPhone app, so if I switch to iOS I can't play with my friends
2. My friends only play Fortnite, so I can't play with them unless I play Fortnite.
3. My skins can't be used on Roblox.
4. I lose access to all my custom worlds
5. Other game engines don't work for building Fortnite custom worlds, I have to use Unreal.
It feels like a certain amount of lock-in is expected just from network effects of products, no?
I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.
This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
You totally can, though. In the real world if I can't remember something, I might look it up in a textbook. Closed-book tests have historically been a totally accepted practice, though, and getting caught bringing notecards with textbook info secretly into a closed-book test would absolutely bring about disciplinary action.