It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into.
The market place of idea struggles in my close friend group where we have sort of a tradition to do these kind of debates, despite us being very close since almost a decade, and educated above our national average.
It's a nice enough idea, but i dont see how to make it work in a space where money amplifies speech, and some types of speeches have been a negative to specific groups of people throughout history.
The obvious long term solution is more education but that requires money, so the obvious short term solution is censorship
> It is effectively impossible to reason people out of positions they have not reasoned themselves into.
Some people cannot be trusted with certain ideas so a more superior individual must control what they can hear.
Do you realize how patronizing and condescending you sound about your friends by the way when you clearly imply your ideas are well reasoned and factual and theirs are the result of psychology manipulation?
But it is true, in fact that is part of the core ideas of representative democracy, and also the basic principle behind the monopoly of violence that any democratic state has to have
Some people cannot be trusted with certains ideas so a more superior indivdual or organisation must control what they can do
Or must we abandon policing since we can all exchange on the marketplace of ideas ?
My idea is since i control 40 gunmans and you control 0, you owe me money despite nothing having ever happened between us. No violence was ever implied.
Not saying that speech = action, but i cannot see how you can argue for police to exist but speech to be free as speech in itself must lead to actions, or why else would we speak in public ?
You can get 2u modifiers key for 2$ a piece on PMK [1]
Sure they're not alps but if you're buying in any capacity i'm 100% sure you would pay maybe 1/10 to 1/100 of the price, case in point [2], even if you had to buy a set of 24$ you could extract 5 2u each for ~5$ a piece,given 16 modifiers that's 80$ in keycaps while being extremely generous about the price they would actually pay about them. Even if you're paying 5$ a piece for every single key that's ~450$ in keycaps, which is not even half of the price.
And i just discovered that they are making you pay 150€ for the privilege of having a qwerty layout, which can be found in [2] for 24$, it's a nice keyboard but unless the case itself is worth 800€+ it's a ripoff
I think you're missing the point here. Each link you posted are for keycaps that are made using injection molding. The process used by Keymacs is resin casting. The costs and customization involved aren't the same. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
The result is the same if you don't give a shit about the quality of the keycaps you are using. Most people don't care at all and that's fine. For those of us who do care even a little, the result is obviously not the same. Even if you don't want to pay for the more expensive option the difference in quality would be apparent.
Also, custom keyboards are basically fashion accessories (and I'm typing this on a $1200 fashion accessory so that's not a criticism of people who like fancy keyboards). After you get above a few hundred dollars the diminishing returns hit hard and fast and at that points 99% of what you are getting is aesthetics unless you're talking about some kind of rare vintage board. Luxury items are frequently priced different from practical items. Lots of people will pay 10-100x the price of an item because it was "made by hand" just because they want to enjoy the expertise of the person who made it rather than just have an object that was produced by a machine.
Generally speaking, thicker keycaps are considered by most enthusiasts to be superior to thinner ones. Pimpmykeyboard's quality is good but not amazing. Also, this is a keyboard for people that like ALPS. There's a million custom boards for people that want MX.
Inal either but the way the court phrases it in the press release is that google negociated a free use licence with everyone, regardless of their financial situations, using their dominant position on the market to "force" everyone.
A way of seeing this is that it might be fine for the big players for national and international news (Le monde, Le figaro ...) , but probably has a much bigger impact on small news outlet, because if they dont agree they are at a disadvatage obviously, so they cannot afford to say no, but at the same time they might already be in a difficult financial position, and that revenu might have helped.
The key part is that google had no real justification according to the court to treat everyone the same way, and that consitutes discrimination.
It seems a bit weird to me too but you could make a parallel to a school that has a set meal price for every student, regardless of parent income.This would obviously be discriminating towards the poorer students.
Now whether google is a public service the way school lunches are is up for debate but i think it basically comes down to equality vs equity
The justification for the remuneration agreement would seem to me to be that each individual news outlet is worth nothing, or very close to nothing, to Google. What provides value to Google is having quality search results about a particular topic in the native language. This is satisfied by some portion of news outlets allowing themselves to be indexed, foreign news sources, and independent sources (i.e. blogs and Twitter).
And my suspicion is that the value to Google is likely inversely proportional to the size of the news source, and I think the smaller publishers are hurting the most. I care to some degree that the NYT shows up in Google (but not much, really) whereas I couldn't care in the least about whether a local news paper in West Virginia is indexed.
