What do you mean it’s false? Evidence that does not hold up in court of law is still evidence. There is nothing false about that sentence.

If I take a photo of my car for insurance after a car crash, it is evidence. Even if it is not perfectly provable that it is my car or that it is from that day and not previous accident, it is still evidence. Evidence does not have to be perfect or prove the case on it’s own to be considered evidence.

Court would consider admissable as “evidence”,

What does that have to do with how a newspaper should write a headline? Since there is no evidence for the wife’s claim (and at least some small evidence against), the news correctly reports it as just her claim.

The unbiased take on this is that two sides are making claims which are not backed by anything that qualifies as evidence

Didn’t I just write that in less detail? I guess I should have added “weak” evidence? I thought the word “some” already made it clear it was far from enough evidence.

Well, as some pointed out, U.S. provided a picture of the boat, which was not a fishing boat, but an expensive speedboat. So there is some evidence against the wife’s claim. On the other hand, a speedboat shouldn’t have enough fuel to reach the U.S. So both stories seem suspicious.

Encrypted. Was a whole thing to recover the keys from a damaged board, only to find old videos and photos from previous dives.

Apparently they were streaming the video to the inside of the sub, so it wasn’t saved to that card.

Sorry, maybe I just did not see how bad it gets. I don’t follow their communications in detail. I wanted to say that being a bit aggressive is fine, but if it was really to the point of attacking you, than that is not ok either.

For me, it would be the opposite. Their “unprofessional” and aggressive way of communications makes me think they are doing it for convictions rather then personal benefits. The person that’s helping you doesn’t need to be overly polite. The person trying to get something out of you does.

Well, I assume the idea is to see the children before they’re that close…

It is, but that does not help you when you stop to talk with the neighbour and their child runs in front of your car while you don’t see.

It should at least be mandatory to have a front & rear facing cameras and proximity sensors for cars like this.

Ah, so the title of this post is completely wrong, since he has not been sentenced yet.

More education is a balance of costs and benefits. There is no harm in even a supermarket cashier having a collage degree. God knows our democracies could use more educated voters. But in many professions, it is not worth the cost. The same knowledge could be gained by a few months of on the job training. If employers are really willing to pay more for those degrees like in Germany than that is fine. But I am pretty sure in some places, people are asking for degrees not because they are needed (worth the cost), but because people with degrees are available cheaply.

After all, if the degrees were worth their price to employers, and the employers paid for them adequately, student loans wouldn’t be an issue.

There is a lot that can be done in practice. One, employers are asking for degrees because they can. If you lower the number of graduates and they can’t get them without higher pay, they will stop. Two, you could put a price on the degree, e.g. higher minimum wage for positions requiring a degree to make employers pay for the extra education.

I must have missed that. Well, there goes any possible excuse about security, since they are going out of their way to make it less privacy preserving…

Except the idea of capitalism is, that society can benefit more from allowing people to invest their excess money into growing industry rather then having them put the money under a pillow or immediately spend them on unnecessary luxuries. More industry usually means some return on investment for the investors but also more taxes being paid (taxes being a percentage meaning they scale with industry size). So capital investment is supposed to be win-win for investors and society. Just the current (mainly US) system is so corrupt and mismanaged this does not reflect into practice due to tax loopholes and consolidation. So punishing the investors instead of fixing the system is hardly uncontroversial and informed take.

Also, with the specific batman example, if you really want to help people, doing charity and publicly beneficial work yourself will almost always be more effective than giving the money to a government to use. A government has to have strict anti corruption measures that are publicly auditable to minimise corruption (or loose a lot of money to said corruption), but these make government very inefficient. Just look at the USPS truck procurement for perfect example. You don’t have this issue when you have one owner of the money who can make unquestionable decisions (because it is his money). That is not to say we should rely on billionaire charity, absolutely not. But it just shows how underdeveloped the take in the post is.

🤣

I want a lot of things that I can’t have. They can want it, but the system doesn’t have to allow it or can discourage it.

Apps from outside the Play Store? No, because previously your phone had no reason to ask Google anything.

Play store seems to be sending list of all applications to ask for available updates. This is observable because play store offers me updates for apps I installed via f-droid and obtanium.

But now, it needs to check developer signatures to know if it’s a verified developer, and it obviously can’t cache all of them as the size would be insane.

Not how signatures usually work. You check the signing key (certificate) is signed by google key and you fetch a revocation list (banned developers). Of course, google could implement it in the way you suggest in theory, but I find it unlikely, since it would block offline installation for no reason.

I don’t know in what context this parable is used in the book, but this does not explain the need for growth in reality. It does not even show why you would need growth in the parable. No matter how many chickens or how much wheat the village produces, there still wouldn’t be more tokens.

Well, partially maybe. In the past, investors were happy with dividends instead of growth. There are extra factors making growth be preferable over dividends nowdays.

I think your are confusing company growth and prices growing, mixing them together.

no. You can pay interest out of your profits without growing. And many businesses don’t have significant loans.

There are many answers to this.

First, this is not a general capitalism thing. It is more the specific flavor we have. Second, it is not an absolute rule, there are companies that don’t focus on growth, but it is rare amongst massive companies.

The original idea of capital investment is that when you need investment for your company (e.g. to buy better machines, expand production, etc.) you let people invest (by buying shares) and then give them a portion of the profits gained from that investment (in the form of dividends).

However, most companies have figured out that if they don’t pay dividends but re-invest the money, shareholders are still happy because their shares get more valuable as the company grows and they get to grow the company, which is good for CEO paychecks and lot of other things.

There are things like economies of scale (if you produce million units of something per year, it is almost always cheaper per unit than if you produce ten per year). So if you don’t grow, your competitor that does grow could sell cheaper than you and put you out of business.

And a lot more.