It was particularly strange because in the text they describe the tiny forests as "the size of a basketball court", and I was like... why didn't you put THAT in the subheading, it actually makes sense.
Hard to say. The bill is neutral on the question of vendor-locked parts, it only says that the company has to make the real parts available to product owners as they would make them available to authorized repair centers.
I mean, it would be nice to mandate that the vendor can't implement technology to prevent the installation of third-party clone parts, but I don't know how you would structure that, legally.
I'm not knocking Framework at all here (and in fact they may be my next laptop), but repairability and long-lasting don't quite mean the same thing. Usually when people say "long lasting" they mean something that is durable and reliable. Repairability can contribute to that, of course, but the option of 3D printing my own parts, or open specs on certain parts, doesn't really make the device last longer without breaking. At best, it gives me some options to remediate it when it fails, and if I'm not capable of making my own parts, then my only option may be to buy parts anyway and deal with downtime.
It's a little early to pronounce longevity on Framework. They could be great, the pieces are there for them to be great, but the whole enterprise could fail and leave you with an upgradeable/fixable laptop with no upgrades or parts.
I'm not drawing some elitist lines between hardcore and casual, I'm saying that the "video gaming revenue" graph is fundamentally defective because it's lumping together genuinely different enterprises, with different audiences, marketing, and revenue models
This entry explicates neoliberalism by examining the political concepts, principles, and policies shared by F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan, all of whom play leading roles in the new historical research on neoliberalism, and all of whom wrote in political philosophy as well as political economy. Identifying common themes in their work provides an illuminating picture of neoliberalism as a coherent political doctrine.
...
But several recent book-length treatments of neoliberalism (Burgin 2012; Biebricher 2018; Slobodian 2018; Whyte 2019) have helped give form to an arguably inchoate political concept. As Quinn Slobodian argues,
in the last decade, extraordinary efforts have been made to historicize neoliberalism and its prescriptions for global governance, and to transform the “political swearword” or “anti-liberal slogan” into a subject of rigorous archival research. (2018: 3)
Along similar lines, Thomas Biebricher (2018: 8–9) argues that neoliberalism no longer faces greater analytic hurdles than other political positions like conservatism or socialism.
In light of this recent historical work, we are now in a position to understand neoliberalism as a distinctive political theory. Neoliberalism holds that a society’s political and economic institutions should be robustly liberal and capitalist, but supplemented by a constitutionally limited democracy and a modest welfare state. Neoliberals endorse liberal rights and the free-market economy to protect freedom and promote economic prosperity. Neoliberals are broadly democratic, but stress the limitations of democracy as much as its necessity. And while neoliberals typically think government should provide social insurance and public goods, they are skeptical of the regulatory state, extensive government spending, and government-led countercyclical policy. Thus, neoliberalism is no mere economic doctrine.
I mean, sure, the term can be misused. But "neoliberal" was adopted by Hayek, Mises, Friedman et. al. to describe their philosophy of liberty, capitalism, and free market policies. So it's not completely inappropriate to associate "neoliberal" with those principles.
I think that in the minds of Friedman, Hayek, Mises et. al. (who coined the term neoliberal after WW2), it was meant to marry modern pro-market economic ideas (the "neo" part) with classically liberal social ideals, reaching back to the Enlightenment. I think they intended it as a counter to socialism, which combined anti-market ideas with regressive ideas around social and civil liberty (at least, in practical application in the wake of WW2).
But yes, in modern parlance it is often a slur aimed at pro-corporate capitalist kleptocracy.
Is it? Neoliberalism describes a modern conservative movement closely aligned to libertarian philosophy. Privatization, elimination of government programs, tax reduction, laissez-faire capitalism are all under the neoliberal umbrella.
I mean, I'm not saying the author is wrong, but they don't even point to a hot mic confession or a conservative e-mail that says "we need to scale back humanities at public universities, because it's teaching our kids the wrong things".
The idea that Republicans are specifically targeting liberal arts academics sounds truthy, and on brand for them, certainly. But it would be nice to see more evidence than angry assertion.
It wasn’t like we could hold him in breach of contract or something
That sort of points to the nature of the problem, doesn't it? The world relied on Musk's sense of charity for MONTHS and did nothing to either pay for or substitute Starlink.
I mean, just saying it out loud, "Musk's sense of charity", should cause the kind of vomit into one's own mouth that immediately merits attention and forces one ask, "What the hell did I swallow?"
Who is working to give Ukraine an alternative to Starlink? Anyone? If not, then yeah, they handed the reins over to Musk and didn't do jack squat to fix it. That's not Musk's failure.
I'm not sure there is much intersection between PC & console gamers and social/casual gamers.
I can't speak for anybody else, I guess, but neither I nor any gamers I routinely interact with play these freemium/social/mobile type games. Like, at all.
I think that looking to ourselves and our habits for answers will not tell us much, as those gamers are not in our sphere of influence.
Although I generally agree with the premise of the article, I don't think the author does himself any favors when he points out many perfectly legitimate reasons that the cuts are happening (documented declining enrollment in humanities, a history of financial planning issues that affect all WVU budgets, humanities making up a minority of cuts, etc).
Are the humanities being cut due to political or ideological pressure? What is the actual evidence that the cuts are ideological in origin? After presenting lots of specifics around finances, the author is curiously nonspecific on that point.
Sure, but the core complaint of the article -- that folks are forced to changed ALL their e-mail based authentication to a new address -- is without merit.
Yeah, my mom has been using AOL.com since the 90s. When the dedicated client went away, I pointed her at mail.aol.com and she was fine. She's still using it today.
Users will keep their exisiting (sic) email addresses on this service, and would get it free for the first year. After that, there will be options of paying for a service, or an ad-based free service after that.
So, what's the problem, exactly? Just take the ad-based free service. Gmail, Yahoo, etc. are ad-based free services too. Nobody is forcing them to change anything.
RickRussell_CA @ RickRussell_CA @beehaw.org Posts 10Comments 210Joined 2 yr. ago
Will Apple sell more devices if they fully support the standard? Will Google?
If not, there's your answer.