Severals reasons: I don't think you could live 2 weeks in a car before getting controlled by the Police, at least in Hong Kong, tents are cheaper than cars, and I didn't have a driver's license!
I find it useful that terms have meaning and one can distinguish between what belongs to it and what doesn't.
A pork steak is a piece of meat taken from a pig. Once it's made of beans or some mushroom it may still be tasty (and I love good veggie food), but it's not a pork steak.
Similarly, the term "homeless" also has a certain meaning, and using it for something else muddies communication waters. And at worst, it makes the fight against actual homelessness harder: Next time some tax dollar is planned to be used for relief, somebody will point to those cases and say "well some homeless enjoy the sunrise and love the outdoors and have two suits in locker, and ain't none of my tax dollars go to that!!"
If you want to call that "gatekeeping", then sure. What's the purpose of your comment then? Gatekeeping me and telling me I should not call out the misuse of the term?
Common meaning is the protocol prerequisite for understanding and very often undervalued.
Words bring vibrations? Perhaps I don’t know, but they bring very strong meaning very often and in most languages also, even though English being famous for the same word meaning different things in different contexts, the conveyed meaning itself is still very important.
And homeless implies less of something which can be a moral choice also, but still there’s the ‘less’ which is not there when your bank account has enough for other options. The mental less in homelessness is bitter and very often related to certain major calamity.
Gatekeeping words would be important if it were respected. Unfortunately it is not, when the context doesn’t favor a specific flavour of the outcome.
Example in France, “homeless” is called SDF, and it means “no home” (no fixed address to receive mail, although shelters allow mail) but doesn’t mean “no roof”. And that was done to include women, because women were practically not represented on the street, as they often have someone who can host them, even if they cannot call it home. There is no word (except derogatory like “Claudo”, or workarounds like “on the street”) to describe the homelessness that men suffer.
Now, since women represent 16% SDF, but most of them are hosted, they do not tend to die during winters. They do not tend to face street violence. They do not match those stats. Unfortunately, since they still represent 16% of SDF, they also get reserved budgets in addition to the budgets which are destined to homelessness in general (and which are themselves already allocated with a slant towards the female gender - the whole thing is absolutely despicable).
So, since words are perverted for political goals precisely in this area, I’d rather we let history written by the writers, with their own appreciation of the words’ meaning. The usual side will win again, but when there is an odd article not written in “the correct way”, let it live.
So the distinction is, using bittorrent is not illegal (yet). It's just a protocol for sharing files. But using it as a tool for illegal activity is illegal, because youre doing something illegal.
The extensions display an estimate based on how many of the extension's users disliked the video. Youtube doesn't expose an API for getting the exact dislike count, except to the creator of the video.
I don't think they are exposed through any public API, the extensions generally just track it themselves (which of course means only dislikes from those that have the extension installed are counted: apparently they extrapolate their returned count, which does likely mean the result is biased)
> The team cultured BMSCs and T cells together, and after 48 hours found that up to a quarter of the T cells had gained extra mitochondria. The researchers dubbed these juiced up immune cells Mito+.
Totally a tangent, but he's right about that. It was a flaw in Harry Potter as well. There was no logical system to how magic worked; spells did whatever plot requirements said they did. And it detracts from the sense of realism in a world when the magic just does whatever is needed at the moment.
I take significantly bigger issue with the lack of societal change from having magic. Way too much of wizard society was “Muggles + occasional party tricks”. When you can conjure food, water, automatons, etc from nothing, nature of living would change completely.
You can brew luck? I would be mainlining that stuff every day. Time travel is given to children? Why is there a train when there are a dozen different ways of magicking yourself around the world?
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality touched on these inconsistencies.
Compare to, say, "A Wizard of Earthsea", where magic is explained in a different way that points out that while a wizard could transmute one substance into another, no wizard would, because of the far-reaching ramifications.
The system was not fully elucidated by any means, but the subtlety of it was suggested by such things as Ged deducing that the doorkeeper was one of the seven masters of Roke.
Well, magic still needs to follow some kind of rules for it to be usable. Otherwise "magic" would just be something random (or maybe chaotic - we just haven't figured out the rules well enough).
Most of the vulnerabilities I've disclosed, and I've seen disclosed, were disclosed for free, with no expectation of getting anything. Why do you think every researcher is an amoral penny pincher who will just sell exploits without caring for the consequences?
I know a lot of different people who do independent security research and have submitted vulns to bounty programs. Not a single one would even come close to saying "well, the bounty is low so I'll sell this on the black market."
Low bounties might mean that somebody doesn't bother to look at a product or doesn't bother to disclose beyond firing off an email or maybe even just publishes details on their blog on their own.
Bounties aren't really meant to compete with black markets. This is true even for the major tech companies that have large bounties.
I guess there are some rules setup in Europe so countries do not try to "cheat" the system (getting benefits from membership in the EU, avoiding regulation). It's sort of people want to avoid taxes but demand perfectly maintained roads, etc.
Of course it does. Now why EU should finance foreign company trying to circumvent local taxes like some chinese sweatshops vs local massive company that gives work to hundreds of thousands local people?
US does exactly the same, also in car manufacturing. This is normal market behavior, countries protect their companies. Apple has nothing substantial in EU, completely foreign force milking the market and paying nothing in taxes. Now if they opened big factories and research centers, they would be treated very differently but they prefer Foxconn or other chinese companies.
Ireland having tax sovereignty was doing what it felt was best for itself, the low tax ecosystem it has fostered is in its benefit. Much like car and farming tax incentives favour Germany and France respectively.
Now perhaps the EU as a entity is moving towards collective taxation policies, but it's not there yet and there's still an aspect of getting away with certain fiscal policies depending on any member nations "clout". Perhaps Ireland is mostly guilty of not having said clout.
