I don't get the 'too high resolution' argument in 2024. The additional power consumption is negligible as has been pointed out by others. My 2013 Nexus 5 had a 1080p display.
> if you can't drive this
I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.
It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well.
> The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.
No, we don't have a definitive answer. We are very good at describing what happens when we sleep and what goes wrong when we don't, and so there are a number of theories as to why we sleep. But a definitive answer? There isn't one (yet). Here is the most likely theory according to Wikipedia:
>The essential function of sleep may be its restorative effect on the brain: "Sleep is of the brain, by the brain and for the brain."[95] This theory is strengthened by the fact that sleep is observed to be a necessary behavior across most of the animal kingdom, including some of the least evolved animals which have no need for other functions of sleep, such as memory consolidation or dreaming.
> When you bake with such flours, you get a denser bread and when you create a starter with them, you'll struggle to get them to double in size for the same reason.
Sharing my personal experience: I use a 100% rye starter (wholemeal or, preferably, German type 1150 [1]) and my starter grows ~2-2.5x in volume. Gluten has an impact but is less important when you proof in a small container (same reason you would bake a high hydration rye bread in a tin). What is a lot more important is that a) the hydration is right, so the starter is not too liquid (in my case a bit less than 100%), and b) you feed the starter in a ratio of 1:3 old:new, or even 1:5.
You are confusing "no base" with "no evidence". A basis can also be logical support. And OP has outlined the logical (decision theoretical) foundations of their reasoning pretty clearly.
So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?
I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?
No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?
> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.
Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.
So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.
It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.
Some analysts say the situation is (was) more nuanced: Prigozhin was pro-Putin but anti-MOD. His intention was to replace the MOD, claim their resources and fight in lieu thereof, for Putin. The article also hints at that.
Not sure I understand your post, both spam and threats are speech (at least in the US), so maybe something was lost in translation?
Here are some of the limits of free speech in the US:
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
And here some examples from Germany (translated via DeepL):
> the protection of personal honour against insult or defamation, the disclosure of information classified as secret, the limits of morality and the protection of minors, the limits of public safety, unfair competition by discrediting the goods or services of a competitor, the unauthorised disclosure of copyrighted information, racial discrimination
From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, they will argue that no line should be drawn.
In addition, from what I understand, they seem to think that democracy is a consequence of "free speech", not the other way around.
There is no end. Laws are just very very well performing models. But every 'law' breaks down if you violate the assumptions of the model: make things too big/small/hot/cold etc.
Yes there are some points where it is, e.g. elections, whistleblowing, witness protection etc., which goes to show that in general, in Western democratic societies, anonymity is not a requirement for free speech.
No, almost all parts of society require identification, you could say it's a fundamental principle (Western democratic) societies are built upon. Your freedom is based on me being held accountable to respect it.
Anonymity is protected in special situations such as elections, communications, whistleblowing etc.
> To me (an European) that is a bonkers way of looking at the issue.
Came here to say exactly this. If you do not trust your democratically elected institutions you need to improve your democratic system.
> "Popular sovereignty is the principle that the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political power."
> if you can't drive this
I assume your use case is playing Triple AAA games. But there are others such as Indie games and emulation which both benefit from higher resolutions. Especially in emulation a higher resolution will allow you to do integer scaling for a greater number of systems etc.