TheGrandNagus @ TheGrandNagus @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

3,426

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're talking about a very different situation to the one I am talking about. I never advocated for companies buying up exclusivity deals, particularly not when the development was done by publicly-owned institutions. I'm not sure where you got that from, because it sure as shit wasn't from anything I wrote.

I agree it's the world we should live in. But it's not exactly realistic. And I'd rather discuss ways we can make our lives materially better as opposed to self-flagellation over a perfect solution while mocking anybody who proposes an imperfect but better-than-status-quo solution.

There is so many people letting perfect be the enemy of good on Lemmy.

Charge parents with neglect if they should have been expected to notice and respond to problems. That should be a jailable offense.

Great, send everyone to jail. Overcrowd prisons and put children into care. All because a parent let their child on social media...

I'm more saying the age limit is clumsy here

It isn't. We have age limits for all kinds of things. How should this be any different?

Social media is completely different though, since parents are in direct control of the devices their kids have access to at home, and what's available on their home network. Parents have the power to handle this themselves, so they should be expected to do so.

Parents can also control whether children buy alcohol, yet we still have restrictions on children.

I didn't insult you, I remarked that you didn't appear to have understood my comment, and by the looks of it you still don't.

Apologies if you're upset by my comment. That was not my intent. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your judgemental comment.

I'm not the one taking issue with something I don't own. That's my entire point. You are discouraging someone from wanting something just because you personally don't value it.

The piano is the headphone jack.

You don't need a headphone jack, and feel the need to disparage others who do. "I don't use a headphone jack, so you shouldn't want a phone with one."

Similarly, I don't need a piano. However, I don't go around telling people they shouldn't want/play one, because I recognise that the things I want in my life are different to the things other people want in theirs.

You're not making sense.

Your position was that someone else is wrong to desire audio jacks, because you personally don't need one after spaffing money on some Bluetooth earphones.

My point – which I thought was very obvious, but apparently you missed it – was that just because you don't see the value of something doesn't mean others don't or that it shouldn't exist.

I don't have a piano, and I don't know why you think I do.

My entire metaphor is that I don't play or have a piano, but I recognise that it's stupid for me to discourage others from having them solely because I personally don't have or want one.

The whole point of Paint and Notepad is that they're extremely simple and no-frills.

If MS really wants to add this bloat, it should be to their Office suite.

Truss thinks she can be a Trump or a Farage-style populist that can easily get people to jump in on any stupid scheme, but she just doesn't have the charisma to pull it off. Such delusions of grandeur.

It's certainly less stable than Gnome or Cinnamon, but to be fair, Plasma 6 is very stable compared to Plasma 4 and how Plasma 5 was for a long while.

I use Gnome on my PCs usually, but Plasma probably seems a lot more familiar to people who are used to Windows, which I imagine was a consideration.

Wanna know how many times I played a piano in the past 20 years?

Zero. Clearly they shouldn't exist.

It's not fiction, that's the reality.

Profit is a purely ideological drive, medicine and healthcare do not need profits to exist.

No shit. Everyone knows that. But it does exist. That's the world we live in. Income tax doesn't need to exist, but it does, and things would go wrong if you suddenly stopped paying it.

Moderna did not single handedly make the covid vaccine

Who said they did? Many companies did, and some had government or university help.

I can go deeper if you want

Go as deep as you like. I've already explained the situation, though.

I am speaking in good faith. How do you go about avoiding companies simply refusing to create new medications when they know for a fact making new ones would cost billions and they'd never get the money back?

I don't like that that's the situation. I want companies to make medications and sell them at a loss, but that's a fantasy world. I'm being pragmatic. We can improve IP laws without completely killing off future medicine development.

"Just, like, don't make profit, broooo" would be nice, but that's not how the world works.

Why is Nvidia saying that Nvidia will be building these chips in the US, when they are actually being manufactured at TSMC Fab 21 in Arizona?

All these news articles, and Nvidia themselves, seems to be stating that Nvidia is not only a fab company now, but is on bleeding edge nodes.

Bad reporting, or trying to trick potential stock investors into thinking Nvidia is a hell of a lot more capable than they actually are as a means to drive up stock prices?

Yep. People are really shortsighted here.

If you scrapped all our IP laws, you could spend years writing a book, spend all your savings on getting it published, only for the likes of Amazon to steal your work and make millions from it.

We need IP laws to protect people and small businesses.

And their parents should take responsibility to only introduce them to SM when they're ready.

But they don't. So what's your solution? To me "sorry kids, but you should be mentally damaged if your parents don't have the inclination or ability to block social media" isn't a solution.

You can't just leave kids to be fucked over in the event their parents aren't properly regulating them to the fullest.

We have laws preventing children from buying alcohol, but based on your thinking, we should get rid of those. After all, it's the parents' responsibility to ensure their children don't get drunk...

That's on the parents.

This is just going back to the "well it's on the parents. And if kids get damaged in the process, that's unfortunate, but society shouldn't try to prevent it"

More companies will develop that drug.

But think of it this way. You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company that makes drugs, vaccines, etc that saves lives. You do this for a profit.

You're presented with a plan to make a drug that, idk, lessens the symptoms of Crohn's Disease. It'll cost $2 billion to create and bring to market.

After it's done being created, and the drug spends 10+ years in clinical testing, it's on shelves. You have to price each box at $10 in order to break even after 5 years, so you do so.

But the law has changed, now anybody can manufacture the drug. A competitor who didn't foot any of the development costs or do any of the hard work is selling each box at $0.80. you can't compete with that, you make an enormous loss and your company edges closer to bankruptcy.

One of your workers comes to you with plans for a $2bn project that will hopefully reduce migraines. Given lessons learned from the previous example, do you go ahead with the plan? Will the board even let you?

I agree that IP laws in the sector need to be pared down, but scrapping them entirely would prevent any company from creating new drugs, as they'd be absolutely certain they wouldn't be able to recoup development and regulatory hurdle costs.

In an ideal world, all drugs would be made by governments, for a loss, and open sourced, so the market could compete on price. But that's not the world we live in.

Hence why I said "as old as." Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.

There has to be a cutoff somewhere, otherwise you fall into the trap of "well 15.5 is basically 16, so 15.5 is fine. And 15 is basically 15.5 so that must be fine too. And I guess 14.5 is basically 15 so..."

We have age cutoffs for other things. Buying alcohol, cigarettes, driving, voting, etc.

Because they're not protecting their safety,

Kids would be safer and mentally better off with less access to social media. You even agreed to this yourself in your first comment.

All those bullet points you listed are wrong. The state has laws surrounding what you can and can't do. So laws do have a say.

You say disciplining children is up to the parents, but the reality is you can't just do what you want. If your idea of disciplinary action to your child is starving them, the state will rightly intervene. Because the state has laws to protect children.

Privacy concerns are legitimate, that's my biggest worry with this proposal, and certainly worth discussing. "We shouldn't have laws to protect kids in this way, for some arbitrary reason I haven't explained" is not.

Children should have safeguards. Parents are not always aware, technical enough to prevent, or caring enough to prevent kids from being damaged by social media (and boy does social media mess kids up). It is not my position that children of those parents should have to suffer unnecessarily.

There's frequently a similar argument in the UK when it comes to free school dinners for poorer families. Some say "well the parents, no matter how poor, should pay, even if they have to make other cutbacks". And while that makes sense, some don't, so what do the "no state involvement" crowd want? The kids to be malnourished? I'd rather we accept that not all parents are good and build a baseline level of protection for all kids.

If it's state funded then that's obviously a different matter.

But usually it's a company making drugs, and they'd go bust if they spent billions developing a drug and got zero money back. Then there would be far fewer drugs made.

Be practical. Letting people die for ideological reasons is not a good thing.

Companies will not — ever — dump hundreds of millions/billions into developing a drug only to have it be sold at cost or even worse, completely losing out on it when a competitor sells a copy of it at a price you can't match.

And even if they did suddenly turn to altruism like that, they'd very quickly go bankrupt.

Why would anybody spend billions making new drugs if they knew with 100% certainty that they'd never make the money back?

We may not like it, but that's the system that we have. Some form of IP law should exist to encourage these companies to continue putting out medicines that better our lives, it's just that our current ones go way too far.

I still am against the government making these decisions, especially for kids as old as 16.

This is for under-16s.

And why specifically be against the government protecting kids' safety in this way? They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you're allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.

Why shouldn't the government make any decisions for this aspect of children's safety, but all others are ok?

Some kids are mature enough to handle things like social media at 16

This is for under-16s. Under-16s are not 16. They are under 16.

That's true.

I'm not against this. I genuinely believe social media is damaging to young people (well... I believe it's damaging to us all, but if adults want to then it's their choice).

However, I don't see how this could be realistically enforced.