> Productivity be damned, RTO makes fiscal sense when you have a 15 year lease on a building you can't get out of. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you'd want warm bodies in seats when you pay 20,000 (or more) a month for your modern-tech cube farm.
Could you explain your thinking this further, please?
In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.
What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.
I'd be interested to know if you might be able to if you could find problems by looking at invariants over partitions of the space.
Like
Is the number of solutions with v1=false plus the number with v1=true the number with v1 free?
If we have n constraints then there 2*n variants where you negate subsets of constraints. Is the sum of solution counts over the 2*n subproblems equal the size of the variable space?
The search method is propagate constraints for a while then pick a variable and bisect it, solve each side and combine.
Generalising slightly from your suggestion, varying the order in which the search runs, and whether various propagations or optimisations are active, should only change runtime and not the set of results.
The other thing I've discovered since that project is clang's AST based branch coverage recording. Getting to the point where smallish unit tests that can be perturbed as above or enumerated exercise each path through the solver would probably shake out the bugs.
"Mr Obama's senior science and technology adviser John Holdren had his personal accounts hacked and Gamble passed all of his personal details to an accomplice who used them to make hoax calls to the local police claiming that there was a violent incident at Mr Holdren’s house resulting in an armed swat team being deployed."
That's the danger of doxxing, once it's out there any sociopathic edgelord can order 15 pizzas, swat you, basically do some shit to fuck with you, except people get killed when SWATting occurs and you can just say I didn't order these when the pizza guy shows up.
Anecdotal, but my grandfather has always advocated building physical fitness in your youth primarily to to have a strong base to carry you into old age.
I of course have no idea what the real answer is, but if you play out the hypothetical this is hardly a paradox.
NK hacks Sony.
US uses technique x to attribute the attack to NK.
In the course of a shared investigation NK learns what technique x is.
NK changes their future operations to counter technique x.
The US loses the ability to use technique x to attribute attacks.
In your jewellery store example I think it may be reasonable to prosecute the person.
In increasing levels of seriousness:
1. The person is walking by the store and, in the course of their everyday activity, sees that the door is ajar; they then contact the owner. This seems fine to me.
2. The person is walking by the store, sees the door ajar, and then altering their normal activities decide to actively test the door to see if they can break into the store; they can and then contact the owner. This seems dodgy to me.
3. The person chooses to visit each jewellery store in town to see if any have a door ajar. This definitely seems inappropriate.
The reason I come down opposed to the person in the second example is two-fold.
Firstly, ignoring intent, where do you draw the line on an acceptable level of 'break the security' activity?
- Thinking that the door is ajar and pushing on it?
- Seeing that the lock is vulnerable and picking it?
- Finding a ground floor window and breaking through it with a brick?
The resolution I choose is that if you have gone out of your way to subvert the security of my stuff without my consent then you have crossed the line. Gray is black.
Second, I don't care about your intent. Every security system will break at some point, and so I view the existence of doors and locks as mainly being about roughly outlining the boundaries that I expect to be respected. If I want to improve my security then I'll hire someone to advise me on how to do it. If I come home tonight to find a stranger who has broken into my house in order to prove that it's possible then (1) I already know, and (2) they have just caused the harm which they are nominally trying to protect me against.
The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?
The public does in fact own the country's nuclear arsenal. The nuclear arsenal is purely defensive and to be used only in the direst of circumstances in the defense of the nation (i.e. the public). No one individual or group of people has the right to use our nuclear arsenal to enrich themselves. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you're not making a lot of sense. Perhaps you could try to explain yourself without the hyperbole.
When a person makes a claim like "All X's are Y's" then it is sufficient to provide a single example of an X which isn't a Y to demonstrate that the claim is false. The example is referred to as a counter example.
[THE CONTEXT]
The most reasonable interpretation of the previous commenter which I could identify was:
"When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for...[but it is expect that] the public that paid for it, [must] pay more and more [to use it]."
To restate this in the counterexample language
(1) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public owns]'
(2) 'All [things which the public owns] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'
Which combine to produce the claim
(3) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'
with "knowledge" being one of the things which the public pays for and so "knowledge" being one of the things which the people should be able to freely access and use.
[MY ARGUMENT]
In order to demonstrate the flaw in this claim as just presented#, I brought up nuclear weapons as a counter example. It is an instance of something which the public pays for but of which the public shouldn't have free access to and use of.
[MY POINT]
In order to maintain the truth of the claim the previous commenter must show that my example is not a counter example by arguing that the public should have access to/use of nuclear weapons.
Alternatively, they can agree that the claim as presented is false, and then perhaps provide a different argument for the conclusion that 'the public should get use of the knowledge created.'
---
I hope this clarifies the point which I am trying to make. Regretfully, the hyperbolic inclusion of nuclear weapons plays a key role my argument and so I did not remove it.
---
# I acknowledge that my interpretation of the claim may not have been what the author intended. Statement (1) seems to be strongly implied by the author, but (2) is inferred. The role of the questions in my original reply was to draw out a precise explanation of what ownership entails. But certainly in the case of "knowledge" the person want to be able to access and use the knowledge.
You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property.
They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.
The biggest problem with I.P. is that those of us who understand that it is in no way "property" continue to allow ourselves to be maneuvered into using that term. As long as we continue to use the term "intellectual property" then the duplication of it will be called "theft" or "piracy". We must stop using these terms with are inherently wrong. The truth is that copying is not only the way that human society advances (you cannot have innovation without copying) but it is how humanity itself evolves. It is inscribed in our DNA and we would not exist without it.
I really agree with you but boy I find it hard!
The problem is that the legal framework as well as the general population knows it at I.P., even though this included far more than copyright and even though those different 'kinds' of I.P. are not similar at all (i.e. patents and copyright).
I don't really believe in I.P. but how do I communicate with people without using terms such as Intellectual Property, Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and whatnot ?
Information should be free, and as such so should be ideas.
Don't compare information with physical property :)
You're right. I also have no idea how to go about it. I can insist that I.P. is not property but there is no consensus for a replacement term. This is where an organization such as the EFF could be useful. Also, just a note, I'm not saying we shouldn't use terms such as trademark, copyright, and patent. I'm just saying that we need to find a way to indicate that broadly, none of these are property. They are monopolies granted by the government which in fact infringe on individual rights and property. If framed correctly, there is a chance that these monopoly powers can be restricted in such a way that they are used only for the betterment of society and not for the enrichment of the individual (i.e. in line with their constitutional mandate).
Better than nothing.
In the short term I would be ok if it only applied commercially and not for private use but in reality we always created regardless of I.P. copyright or patents and i don't think these are tools for betterment of society but just betterment of some.
My argument is that the public paying for a thing is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the public should have use of that thing.
Since knowledge creation and nuclear weapons are both examples of things which the public pays for, I defend the comment as it stands. The distinction between IP and physical property does not enter into the claim.
My argument is that knowledge can't be stolen from the people or resold to the people at a profit. Immoral and even illegal in my view even if not backed by law.
Nuclear weapons are physical and as such can't be shared with the population but ultimately, assuming for a second that democracy works, american nuclear weapons belong to the american people, even though it is not under direct control of any singular citizen or at least it shouldn't be.
The distinction is fundamental. You can't copy at marginal cost nuclear weapons, but you can copy information indefinitely.
If you're trying to gain information and experience then it is silly to try to optimise for "How many pages have I looked at?"
You need to come to terms with what the author is claiming, critically evaluate the argument used to support those claims, and then decide the relevance of this new perspective on the world (eg, how will you implement it in your life?)
"In this document, I report on experiments I conducted using 1990 U.S. Census summary data to determine how many individuals within geographically situated populations had combinations of demographic values that occurred infrequently. It was found that combinations of few characteristics often combine in populations to uniquely or nearly uniquely identify some individuals. Clearly, data released containing such information about these individuals should not be considered anonymous. Yet, health and other person-specific data are publicly available in this form. Here are some surprising results using only three fields of information, even though typical data releases contain many more fields. It was found that 87% (216 million of 248 million) of the population in the United States had reported characteristics that likely made them unique based only on {5-digit ZIP, gender, date of birth}. About half of the U.S. population (132 million of 248 million or 53%) are likely to be uniquely identified by only {place, gender, date of birth}, where place is basically the city, town, or municipality in which the person resides. And even at the county level, {county, gender, date of birth} are likely to uniquely identify 18% of the U.S. population. In general, few characteristics are needed to uniquely identify a person."
Could you explain your thinking this further, please?
In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.
What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.