No it doesn't. The sync could be device-to-device, or it could be encrypted in it's storage on the intervening server, and require that the user provide secrets on the new device.
Right, and it's not morally wrong for a mosquito to bite you, and no one would say that the bug "should have known better", but we do our best to prevent it anyway. Both entities will go precisely as far as we allow them to.
When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong, you never see people making this claim that moral concepts don't apply to companies. They only say it when it's convenient for them (i.e., when they want to take advantage of Amazon rather than vice versa).
To compare a company's actions to those of a mosquito strikes me as quite silly. Amazon is run by people who make conscious choices and who are responsible for their actions.
> When companies like Amazon do things that are morally wrong
Companies don't "do things". The managers (and ultimately Bezos as the top manager) are the moral actors here. "Amazon" is just shortcut name for all the people that work there, this set is ever changing.
Also, that comparison is made specifically because companies have no morality and so if we want them to behave in any sort of way approximating our morals, they must be regulated to do so. Those comments are advocating a change in the way companies are treated in order to get them to behave in a more expected manner.
I don't follow. People also need to be regulated in order to behave morally. Companies are run by people and it's entirely possible for companies to take moral stands or deliberately decide to do the right thing even when it's not the most profitable thing. It might not happen as often as we'd like, but it certainly does happen.
I think that intelligence is much more environmentally driven rather than genetic, though I don't have any proper references for that. I would argue that, in a properly functioning society, intellectualism, assuming it's strongly tied to wealth, wouldn't really be heritable beyond one generation.
Combating anti-intellectualism as a trend is probably more complicated than just trying to get the existing educated to have more children then the existing uneducated.
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. Carrying capacity is a thing, and it applies both at the petri dish level and at the biome/global level.
This argument always seems a little strange to me. I think I can count on one hand the number of times, in 14 years, I've ever made eye contact with another driver while driving, or used some kind of hand signals. And in all of those cases, if the signaling had failed, the situation would have resolved itself just fine in less than a minute anyway. Most of the time, I can't even see the other drivers through reflections on their windshields. Sure, sometimes I'll stick an arm out the window to wave my thanks when somebody lets me merge, but that's not a critical communication.
I have a PhD in chemical engineering, but not a PE, since I didn't go the industry route. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling myself an Engineer without it, and that was the attitude expressed by my professors and cohort coming out of undergrad.
It's my opinion that the title "Engineer" should be on par with things like "Doctor" or "Lawyer". It should require certification and there should be consequences for claiming to be one if you aren't.
I don't think anyone would get in trouble for job titles like "computer doctor" or "network protocol lawyer". Practicing medicine or practicing law (or in some cases, practicing as an engineer) without the required qualifications, regardless of job title ... different story.
An event can still be situationally, or cosmically ironic even if it's not in fiction. if you really want it to be a property of communication, then think of the communication as being between the universe, or God and the subject.
More importantly, English is defined by common usage, and the usage of irony in describing an unexpected combination of real events has been common for hundreds of years. I believe this probably comes from people's common belief in fate, or that their lives are part of some broader story. Under this mindset, it makes perfect sense to use terms from literature to describe phenomena of life. And your insistence that irony is a property of communication is satisfied.
Words have multiple senses, and the ones from common usage are just as valid as the ones from academic usage, though they may be harder to pin down.
This is why it is important for words to have specific meanings. This muddling of "irony" is at least partially responsible for the narrative fallacy that you describe. The universe does not care about our subjective experience. "Unlikely" events occur in everyone's life, but not because the Fates are taking poetic license with that life. If the roads should be better maintained or if they are maintained much better than they should be, we won't know from repairs to the local road superintendent's car.
I love new usages that make English more capable or more entertaining. I detest those that impoverish our discourse and thus our thinking.
