Readit Newsedit: oh it's not copyleft, but specifically quid pro quo so tesla gives you their patents if you give them yours
They issued a 127 page supporting decision on why they found it was a fair process that generated a fair price.
Want to say which part you take issue with that shows it was not capable of the judgement?
FWIW - I actually hate tesla, i just also hate the sort of drive by shitting on other fields that HN seems to do sometimes. If there are concrete reasons to believe they aren't capable, let's have that discussion. Otherwise, there's no need to denigrate others capabilities without evidence based on our feelings :)
Wonder where that idea even came from, the BBC article even says as such "“It is a delightful and attractive myth that Shakespeare’s language got fossilised” in parts of the US, [the dialect anthropologist] says."
I mean; we have old runic languages that match northern English pronunciation really well- along with "olde english" spelling which is clearly a rote writing of a southern English accent (likely from somewhere like Gloucestershire).
An attractive myth, perhaps, but I'm not sure how much truth there really is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/bofu3g/how_did_ame...
I get the sense that the article very much believes Americans speak more traditional English.
War destroys existing structures and gives them a chance to evolve again.
The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake. By basic functions I also include all functions that do not depend on growth.
are you suggesting that destroying things, results in improvement in the long run? I don't know that I could be farther from agreeing with that. If starting from scratch was better, why wouldn't we be doing it voluntarily at frequent intervals? It just seems easily dismissed as entirely incorrect.
> The economy is growth dependent and can only perform its basic functions under growth, even if that growth is fake.
I don't think this describes the economy, it just describes some of the metrics we use to gauge the health of the economy. burning down the internet and killing everyone that understands it might result in another dotcom boom, but would you say the economy is more healthy than some other reality where the internet continued to exist with no reset and only has smaller incremental gains?
The truth is economic growth hasn’t been occurring in real terms for most people for a long time and the rich have been transferring money from the poor to themselves at a dramatic rate.
I’m starting to think the entire system is corrupt and we are headed for a destroyed Europe and a civil war in the US. Maybe I’m very pessimistic but this moment in history feels like the end of the American empire, what comes after this is extremely uncertain but people only seem to demand a fair piece of the wealth after a world war.
I get really worried when I see people glamorize equality post-war...post-war times are not good times for the middle class. The most equal wealth humanity has ever had is during caveman times, but that is not the goal.
war does not make things better folks, I hope that's not what OP was trying to say, but just in case let's be very very clear about how awful war is for progress and humanity.
Being silly to ridicule overreaching laws is top-trolling! Love it.
You don't seem to understand how scientific models and theories work.
In fact, germ theory of medicine is much the same way. Germ Theory does not explain or predict or account for ALL disease, for example PTSD, and if you build a useful theory for mental illnesses that aren't caused by little creatures of some sort, that doesn't overturn germ theory, it compliments it. A person creating a new theory of how Long Covid hurts people for example may not stick strictly to germ theory, but that would STILL not overturn germ theory.
>Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example.
Galileo isn't an example of the science being "settled" and someone radically overturning it. Nobody believed in geocentrism due to "Science", which is also why Galileo had so much difficulty, it was literally a religious matter. Kepler was about as close as we had to any sort of consistent theory to how the heavenly bodies moved, and it was not at all settled, and yet he was still basically right
In actuality, there are remarkably few times where a theory was entirely overturned, especially by a new theory. When we know little enough about a field that we could get something so wrong, we usually don't have much in the way of "theory" and are still spitballing, and that's not considered settled science. If you want a good feeling for what this looks like, go read up on the debates science had when we first started looking at Statistical Mechanics and basics of thermodynamics. There were heated(lol) debates about the very philosophy of science, and whether we should really rely on theories that don't seem like they are physical, and that mostly went away as it continued to bear high quality predictions. The problems and places where theories are not great are usually well understood by the very scientists who work through a theory, because understanding the parameter space and confidence intervals for a theory are a requirement of using that theory successfully.
"Human CO2 and other pollutants are the near totality of the cause of the globe warming" is settled science.
"The globe is warming" is settled science
"Global warming will cause changes in micro and macro climates all over" is settled science
"A hotter globe will result in more energetic, chaotic, and potentially destructive weather" is settled science and obvious
"Global warming is going to kill us all in a decade" is NOT settled science. There is no settled science for how bad climate change will make things for us, who will be worst affected, who might benefit, etc. There is comprehensive agreement among climate scientists that global warming is harmful to our future, and something we have to try and reduce the effect of, prepare for the outcomes of, and adapt to the consequences of, and something that, whether we do anything to combat it, will be immensely costly to handle.
You've proved my entire point in your very first sentence and then go on to say I don't seem to understand how scientific models and theories work.
> Nobody believed in geocentrism due to "Science"...
This isn't a serious argument. Feel free to look up the works of Aristotle, who is sometimes called the first scientist.
I don't have the energy to address the rest of your incorrect conjecture.
> It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.
It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real" in the absence of any experimental results that seriously challenge those theories. Instead, we should put our effort into advancing medicine and fixing climate change, predicated on the settled science which makes both those fields possible.
You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.
> It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"
Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.