Agree, but economists do have a solution for this problem. Self-assess the value and pay taxes based on that value. If someone/the government makes an offer that is some percentage greater than that value, you must sell.
Sounds like a solution only an econ could think up of, which doesn't take into consideration other external factors that would apply specifically to the person holding the property, such as:
- human psychology (loss aversion, endowment effect, mental anxiety due to risk of being forced to sell your property)
- switching costs (monetary, mental, time spent searching for alternatives, costs to moving to something else)
- replacement costs (transaction costs, etc)
Last time I researched it, Chrome's design for sandboxing and multiprocessing was much more extensive and mature. Firefox is working on getting there, but it's an afterthought. I'm under the impression that Chrome is close to invulnerable against non-targeted attacks in which code escapes the browser or the tab, which is my main security concern.
Try to track a moving target when your screen updates almost 0.1 seconds after you adjust your joystick.
I expect Stadia input latency to be much greater than that, though, because most display hardware adds at least 30ms on top of whatever latency Stadia introduces.
I can see two possibile outcomes named after the stereotypical age of the reaction. The "child" outcome where it is accepted as the norm or the "teenaged" one where they tear it down and call previous generations terrible/stupid people for being responsible for it.
Essentially that seems to be the pattern of resolution of changes - sometimes applied recursively in a cyclic way. One example is baroque vs austere in church design and iconoclasm.
I am hoping for teenaged ones to gain dominance since the people who look at the surveillance and say "What the fuck is wrong with you - you are literally acting like antagonists in a young adult science fiction dystopia!" seem to be a minority in influence currently.
Steven Pinker also makes an interesting case that widespread reading of fiction has made people in general more empathetic as they put themselves into a greater variety of shoes.
This was claimed long before Pinker. But the general proposition brings with it one huge (moral? / ethical?) problem: at its heart its the argument that feeling sad for fictitious entities helps us to in some way interface better with non-fictitious entities. Terry Eagleton argues against the idea of considering fictitious people as in any way relating to real people, but I think he's wrong. The argument needs to be expanded and reversed. In reality, we regard all or almost all) other entities as fictitious. So in this way such a Humanities / Pinker argument but correct in the sense that we are as much inventing entities. However, then, a potential (moral? / ethical?) dilemma arises in that we will then expose this conceptualization on these entities to whatever degree is possible, giving us a panoply of common cultural practices such as --- but not limited to --- the attempted elimination of homosexuality, the confinement of women to the home, etc. So that which claims to liberate instead provides a superstructure for oppression.
The human brain seems not to experience or process reality so much as simulate it, since we know there are myriad ways that memories and perception don't match literal reality. I wouldn't doubt that deep, deep down at whatever amounts to the "bare metal" there isn't a recognized distinction between "fictional" and "real" entities, or even between those and the self.
Perhaps only at higher levels of abstraction that these distinctions are meaningful.
