52S User comments

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:

(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’ covered news content that:

(i) are made using the digital platform service; and

(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;

(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;

(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:

(i) by particular persons; or

(ii) in particular circumstances.

(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.

Exactly, “on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business“, i.e. on the news site’s own personal page, which is already possible.

This may be what you are looking for:

https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.info/report/digital-med...

Except this chat seems has a unique(feudalistic maybe?) update system:

https://urbit.org/using/operations/stars-and-galaxies/

Updates are passed down from galaxy to star to planet. Star owners can modify those updates to push custom software to planet VMs.

Interviewers underestimate the complexity and problems floating point numbers cause in interview questions.

If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.

Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned for public companies over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.

Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.

Interesting thought.

Well, workers can buy equity in some company if they want. And shareholders' dividends get diluted.

What bothered me about the urbit system was that updates were "evergreen" and distributed top down from the heiarchy of galaxies and stars. Any person in the chain could make modifications and you were at the mercy of the parent not to send a malicious update to your planet. Also, orthogonal persistance meant data was never really deleted. This didn't seem to me like a personal server much less something I'd want to store my entire digital life on.

In past posts on the fora at urbit.org, it was explained that while identities would be on the blockchain(ie who owns what star or galaxy), OS updates would still flow down from the top hierarchically(with each galaxy or star adding their own modifications). I wonder if things have changed since then? Are operating system updates voted on by the community with hashes of the binaries perhaps stored on the blockchain or in some forum within the community?

Curtis talks about this in his farewell letter

https://urbit.org/posts/essays/a-founders-farewell/#urbit--a...

>Urbit's distribution and sponsorship hierarchy of galaxies, stars and planets is not designed as a political structure, or even a social structure.

>Socially and politically, Urbit is a flat network of planets.

>The sponsorship hierarchy and the senate of galaxies ... are technical governance mechanisms. ... Because sponsorship has an escape mechanism, it is not a feudal bond

AFAICT the hierarchical part (with Azimuth) is essentially just for routing packets while the application layer stuff like chat is effectively peer-to-peer.

It'd be kind of nice to have opcodes like some sort of Forth language just for variety and fun.

What message does Austin, Dallas, and Boulder send?

I grew up next to Dallas and just moved from Austin a few months ago. Both cities value relaxation quite a bit.

Naturally, there are motivated people and pockets (that will probably comment on this), but those are exceptions. That's what caused me to move.

"College grads do better then those who did not went to college..."

This is simply selection bias or survivorship bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

"They do worst then grads of previous generation though"

Again, selection bias. Currently everyone except a limited few are encouraged to go to college therefore the effect of selection bias has weakened over time and current grads don't do as well as grads of generations past.

Hmm. So if only 10% of people go to college, you'd expect that the best 10% go, and you'd expect the best 10% to do better than the other 90%. But if 70% of people go to college, well, we don't have 70% "winner" positions available in society, so a bunch of those who go to college have to accept not-so-good outcomes. That makes some sense.

Yes its a variation on the interview suit injustice problem

If you require job applicants to buy a $1K suit to wear to interviews, that's merely a weird tax if there's one applicant per job and therefore everyone ends up with a $100K job for their $1K investment and everyone who buys a suit is ridiculously happy and thinks everyone should be forced to buy a suit to be as happy as they are.

Of course if you have ten dudes buying ten $1K suits to interview for one job, thats net $9K of injustice, and the vast majority of people who buy an interview suit see it as a wasteful horrible racket designed to extract money from the very people who have the least opportunity in life to begin with, etc.

The army recruitment analogy is similar. The army needs 200K recruits, as long as more than 200K show up, its not a problem (for the army, anyway) if 350K show up one year or 375K the next year, only 200K are gonna make it anyway, so trying to make a relevant story about 350K vs 375K is going to be deaf ears.

I am not saying that college is magical place where everyone has guaranteed success.

The parent argues that college grads made "poor investment" because "only 27% of college grads in America work in a job closely related to their degree, and 'The chances of finding a job related to your degree or major go up a few points if you move to a big city'."

That is ridiculous argument. That group of people is doing better then anyone else, whether they work in field they studied or not. There are many jobs that require you to have some college degree or related college degree and people without degrees wont get them.

If parent wants to prove that some people would be even better off without going to school, he should give us more (e.g. prove that these would be even better off if they did not went) or pick different group of people.

Otherwise it is just the usual misleading talking point based on wishful thinking and bias.