My experience is that most won’t. I was someone who wouldn’t say no, once. For me it was because I was naive and didn’t believe people would work so hard to exploit others.
In fact, one time there were users on an ad network I built who were breaking rules. I’d track them and try to figure out where they came from and who they actually are, only for them to drop out and open a new account. I’d report to my CEO about this, ask for advice, generally discuss strategies to prevent this kind of usage of the network. He seemed very concerned. But sure enough, eventually I figured out it was actually him all along. He was making tens of thousands of dollars in revenue per month doing literally the most shady stuff on the network. He was using my naivety to keep himself in the loop on internal compliance and stay a step ahead of me.
I’ve worked with several people like this. They love the tech industry. I had to finally admit to myself that I worked with bad people and did bad things to develop the awareness and courage to start saying no and do something else.
Once I was gone, he did the same thing with a younger developer who was eager to break into the industry. I actually work with him now, nearly 15 years later.
I don't see the problem in that to be honest... Especially if the other solution would be allowing private companies to take over our (shared) orbit, meteorites, and -- continuing the trend -- planets for themselves to profit. If it seems overly pessimistic, we can just look at how our own planet's ressources are shared...
There is a p2p social network (as in, people offering there services whatsoever) in France that does exactly this: it's called "Gens de confiance". It works well, although it creates kind of a gated community (as intended: it is mainly meant for upper-class social circles).
So free speech is not a constitutionnal right if I follow your argument? You sound quite scary right now... (and I am not even concerned, not american)
Things become a bit more murky when you free speech while on somebody's payroll and representing them. Commercial speech has somewhat less protections than regular speech.
And anyway the first amendment is about the congress. It doesn't limit the capacity of the executive branch to do ideological purges as the McArthysm period showed. Although it did got limited by the courts - from the reading of case law it had to do more with the fifth amendment and not first.
The McCarthy era seems to be the time period when some people think America was "Great" and that we should return to it. I mean look how easy it is to label any policy as socialist/communist/marxist these days!
I believe RT (which is Russian but produced some interesting journalism once in a while) was banned in Europe (or at least it is in France). I don't even know what to think about it...
I would say that in France, Simone Weil really is more known than André Weil! And I suggest anyone to read La Condition Ouvrière (I don't know the title in English), which is not only very instructive and moving, but also specially beautiful in my opinion.
The three mile island incident singlehandly shows that US' concern should be correlated to other countries nuclear incidents. Thinking that it only arrived because of "communism" is quite wrong, especially because of the technical capabilities of the USSR.
I don't see how the largest nuclear non-disaster in world history prompts a comparison between the US and the country that built the people's chandeliers and couches so large that the head of the planned economy had to give a speech declaring them too difficult to move in and dangerous to hang to be tolerated. Oh, and also their actual disaster killed an infinite multiple of people.
I'll be happy to compromise with you, though. If you support nuclear in spite of Chernobyl, I'll support the death penalty for any capitalist that oversees a nuclear meltdown not caused by an ICBM despite your lack of knowledge about the history of the USSR, and nature of communism. I might even support burning at the stake or something if that's what it takes to make the obviously correct decision for human progress. McCarthy wrote that link decades after Three Mile and Chernobyl. He wouldn't have done so if he didn't also know what I'm relaying to you now. Received opinion is the least grounded kind.
EDIT: Lol I missed what thread this was in. Again, was Three Mile Island a Thorium reactor? We'd all save so much time if questions were directed to Google instead of me.
If you can understand French or don't mind subtitles, I advise you very strongly to listen the interview Aurore Stéphant gave on the Thinkerview some months ago.
Contrary to what other might be saying, that's not a question we can avoid asking, as there is a physical realities behind the ideal of switching to a fully decarbonated and decentralised grid... Even though that's basically the only thing we can do to keep existing as a specie.
Mistral models tend to be quite good at non-English languages. French of course, but also Spanish, German and Italian. From what I have read it’s something they consider important when training their models.
