Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more aaa_aaa's comments login

If you can get "free" money from the state why not?


If they don’t get free money they won’t build US fabs because it doesn’t make economic sense. It’s pretty simple really. If you want them in the US you need to pay them the difference of what it would cost them to build elsewhere.


Sure, but fab will still not work well. But I don't think they care. Intel gets money, State get's its propaganda.


Both patents and copyright laws are monopoly rights given by state. They are evil and should be abolished without exception. IP is not property, and empirical evindence shows they do more harm then good for humanity.

There are some avid supporters of this strain of thought. Here is an example: albeit old, this may give some background:

https://mises.org/library/book/against-intellectual-property


> IP is not property, and empirical evindence shows they do more harm then good for humanity.

Although I agree with your position re IP not legitimately being property, I want to nitpick a bit here, and point out that empirical evidence can only substantiate empirical claims. Construing outcomes as "harm" or "good" is a normative evaluation, so this argument is an attempt to leap across the is-ought gap.


Reason I mentioned empirical evidence is for people who would not accept abolishing IP and copyright laws on philosophical grounds. Otherwise, for me its illegitimacy does not require evidence.


Same goes for means of production property


The core criterion for whether something can be property is whether it is economically rival, i.e. whether possession/use by one party inherently excludes others from equivalent possession/use. This is true for all physical resources, including most items that people regard as "means of production", making them natural property, but isn't true for most of the things IP laws apply to.


No. That is property and can be owned. IP is not tangible, can be exactly copied once observed, without effecting the original.


How are you defining 'ownership' in a tangible way?


Lockean way.


One thing I disagree is that Google is not terrified being unfair. They are terrified because their bias would be unveiled so funny they will be shamed and ridiculed by it.


I did not say "terrified [of] being unfair"

I said "Google is terrified of BEING SEEN AS being unfair or taking a side"


Perhaps they want to hide their extreme bias which would be revealed in a comical way.


I think many are proven to be correct or likely to be correct. 1,2,4,5 etc


Especially 5 - you if you disbelieve that one you are saying that scientists never fabricate evidence.


That would be misreading the question. The important part is "in order to deceive the public", whereas the aim is mostly career advancement. Or being paid.


I think that happens as well. EG discrediting even the possibility of the lab leak theory, or incest research in the UK Bio Bank.


aye. publish or perish isn't a conspiracy, and tenure track ain't a thing unless you're hitting research home-runs.


Good riddance. State of mozilla shows she was not fit for the job. It is too late anyway. Years ago, she should have been fired for her post after the death of a veteran mozilla developer.


Austerity is result of reckless state money printing and waste.


I think the most close to production ready "mostly" Rust OS is Fuchsia.


I've seen this stated in a couple places, but IIRC the kernel is C++ and the UI is Dart. I assume lots of things in between could be in rust, but do you know which? daemons, services, drivers, window server?


I miss times when people stated their opinions directly and concisely.


Aren't all carbon capture projects are actually scams for collecting free money from state?


Yes they are just that, but you should not say it out loud, otherwise the people that like to say that those projects are "economically viable" may get upset.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: