![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b13dd487-9001-491f-b5b2-60fe23af667a.png)
Yeah, the privatization is the issue. The state should be directly paying for maintenance of the facilities so there’s no incentive to have more prisoners. Profit shouldn’t be part of the equation at all.
Yeah, the privatization is the issue. The state should be directly paying for maintenance of the facilities so there’s no incentive to have more prisoners. Profit shouldn’t be part of the equation at all.
It would be good to have a place to discuss the merits of different systems. If you want to make a change, the bulk of your efforts are going to be in breaking out of the FPTP system, and that doesn’t change regardless of which voting system you support.
Is this meant for a particular country, or just RCV discussion in general?
Ah, I see. Though I would call this manipulative, not dishonest.
entities that seems honest are the most secretly dishonest
It’s the converse. By definition, dishonest entities (that are good at what they do) will appear honest.
Definitions aside, let’s go back to my original argument. To rephrase it a bit: A transparently manipulative entity is better than a deceptive and manipulative entity. So why protest the added transparency and not the manipulation?
I think I’m missing an important part of your argument here. What are they doing that you consider to be dishonest?
Worse than what they’ve been doing for the last decade? It seems to me like this is a better state of things because it’s clearly a lot of money for one big purchase, so you know immediately that it’s not something you can afford. Better transparency, so less manipulative.
This is a problem with the add-on store, not the browser. Do the forks have their own add-on stores? Or do they just use the same one that Mozilla provides? To the best of my knowledge, the only forks that have their own stores are the ones that wouldn’t be able to use Firefox plugins anyway (e.g. Palemoon).
I feel like if anything has the right to be ridiculously expensive, it’s art.
What’s the downside?
I don’t think forking Firefox is going to change what you see in the add-on store. You would need someone to run their own store. Or just install the plugin manually.
Is this a good thing? Consuming plastic means releasing all the carbon that they’re made of.
My local bakeries use paper bags. But they also don’t sell sliced bread.
Treat people well, and people will like you.
This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.
Implying perfect code exists anywhere.
It’s also trivially easy to tell if you’re presenting someone else’s work as your own. In an interview, you ask about their projects. Those would be very easy (and often fun) for the actual creator to answer, and not for anyone else.
https://lemmy.ca/comment/8470067
I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said. If you choose to ignore it, then so be it. There isn’t really anything I can say to convince you that this is true. You just have to go out in the world and experience it for yourself.
It’s fine (and expected in most human interactions) to default to assuming that the most commonly intended meaning is what’s intended. And no, that doesn’t mean you should respond like an asshole. Respond to the intended meaning of the original statement instead of commenting on how your use of the English language is superior to theirs.
This is how human interactions work in general. It’s worth learning if you want to fit into society.
In the only perfectly logical interpretation of the comment, you would be correct. Unfortunately, humans are not always perfectly logical and will often say things that are illogical. The most common meaning intended by the phrase “this is a $5 game” is the illogical one of presenting it as an objective fact.
I refuse to believe that this is the first time you’ve encountered an illogical statement.
Well. Thankfully he never said that his statement was an objective fact.
They did. Just because you don’t explicitly say “this is a fact”, doesn’t mean you’re not making a statement of fact. “This is a $5 game” is a statement of fact. “I wouldn’t pay more than $5 for this game” is a statement of opinion. That’s the difference between humans reading a passage and computers doing the same. Humans take context and past experience into account, all of which say that the phrasing they originally used implies an objective fact.
I believe the prevailing opinion is that price increase for anything is fine as long as it goes towards the people doing the work. Increase a game’s price so the devs get better pay? Cool. Increase the price of bread so that bakers get better pay? Cool. Increase the price of anything so that shareholders get better returns? Not cool.
Spoken words, none yet. But if you count sign language, it would be “more”, which is used to request food or water.