To a large degree I think this is more true than not.
Putting style aside, it's ridiculous that we don't have basic common designs that "just work". I want a kettle and toaster that are expected to work for decades and can be easily repaired if something goes wrong. There are some reasons to differentiate (e.g. I want shoes that work well and last but people have different foot support needs) but in my ideal world we have shared product functionality and slap stylistic preferences on top of that.
The problem is once you do that that particular design will stop improving fast. e.g what if phones were legislated to all be open to everything and everyone and standardized at Symbian S40.
After the other user mentioned your name I thought it sounded familiar too so I looked you up. I used MASON quite a bit in the past, thanks for all your work on that!
I agree it is a bit weird. I also wasn't able to find a recent press release from the government and some of the articles about this from the past week have been using quotes from 2019 (giving the impression, to me, as though they are recent).
But in the interest of proving to myself that this isn't all some big hoax I did manage to find the government page listing all the schedule 1 toxic substances [0]. Hopefully that helps a bit. The final item on the list when I write this is "Plastic manufactured items"
The unfortunate side effect if this became standard is that there may be far less motivation for wealthier nations to help poorer nations vaccinate everybody.
I don't entirely disagree that it might remove some motivation. But right now the whole world is in crisis, and I don't think gaining leverage by tying everyone's fates together is the best solution.
Anyway, the travel restrictions I mentioned would hardly be bulletproof. Vaccinations don't confer 100% immunity, and tests aren't 100% accurate. So countries could still reduce their risk by supporting worldwide vaccination.
Also, this might be a moot question if we can't produce enough vaccines to do it all at once.
Maybe a very distorted type of theft but from my perspective the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have, or takes the place of a sale. From the limited research I've seen the evidence is, at best, mixed that corporations are losing sales due to piracy.
If it was a clear choice between buying something or pirating it, equating piracy with theft would be more reasonable (though the owner still has their good so not entirely identical) but that doesn't seem to be the typical scenario. The ads only make that equivalence because it's better for the companies if they convince people it's theft.
From a moral perspective I think whether it is theft really depends on your motivation/what you would do in the absence of piracy.
> the main immoral thing about theft is that it deprives someone of what they used to have
You should have just stopped there. That "or takes the place of a sale" rider is a very recent invention. You know what else takes the place of a sale? Spending your time doing anything else and ignoring the fact that the work even exists. If I could have paid to listen to a song from artist A and instead I listen to a song from artist B (free or paid, but we'll assume it was with permission either way) then that "takes the place of a sale" for artist A, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about choosing to listen to artist B's song instead. Or reading a book, or sleeping, or whatever. You could even write your own songs and give them away for free, directly competing with artist A and taking the place of many sales, and there still wouldn't be anything immoral about that. Artist A was never guaranteed sales, so they haven't lost anything simply by not making a sale. They still have their copy of the work, so they have not in fact been deprived of anything.
Complaints about piracy always read to me as: "You aren't complying with this monopoly which was promised to us in a rather one-sided deal with a third party (government) which (unilaterally) claims to represent you. If you don't shape up—or even if you do—we intend to sue you for everything you own in courts run by our beneficiaries and otherwise do whatever we can to ruin your life, just on general principles and not because we suffered any actual damages." And yet they have the audacity to pretend to claim the moral high ground…
Furthermore, by the way, theft typically destroys total value. If someone steals a wallet (or anything really), the amount he gets from fencing it is typically much smaller than the cost (including hassle, time spent, and potentially nostalgic value) to the original owner of replacing everything (if that’s possible at all).
Copyright infringement, by contrast, arguably creates value - instead of one person being able to see the movie, two can see it.
With the most common North American accent "would've" and "would of" sound very similar. My suspicion is that the error tends to arise in people that have learned language more from speaking than reading.
In my instance, that would have a strong correlation and never read fictional material, autistic spectrum imagination thing for me, but love burning thru an RFC.
So in my instance, I would tend to agree with that observation and support that as a large factor from personal experience.
No, it's an error. "Woulda" is the correct way of spelling a regionalism. "Would of" is an incorrect spelling of "would've", which is a contraction of "would have".
I was surprised when I read that as well but reading further my impression was that you can confirm the contents of the ballot only while voting and then afterwards you only get access to a message along the lines of "Yes, vote a678b234 was correctly counted" or a message saying otherwise but not the contents of the ballot.
(which, while more secure, is also slightly less useful)
Here's my /etc/resolv.conf (I'm running Linux, though the theory is cross-platform):
# Generated by NetworkManager
search my-university.edu
nameserver their-dns-server-ip
nameserver their-other-dns-server-ip
nameserver their-third-dns-server-ip
DNS queries get sent to the nameserver, but the search domain is what's important here. The search domain is used to resolve non-fully-qualified domain names. So if I just type in http://cs, that's not a FQDN since there are no .s - with cs.my-university.edu, it goes edu->my-university->cs, but just cs is not fully qualified. So since the search domain is 'my-unversity.edu', if I just type in http://cs into the browser, it will look up cs.my-university.edu.
In your case, going to the URL ai.uwaterloo.ca redirects to the URL you linked. Adding the trailing . to ai makes it fully qualified, so going to "http://ai." makes your DNS lookup just 'ai' instead of 'ai.uwaterloo.ca'.
The search domain stuff is mostly useful for addressing other devices on the network. My home router sets the search domain to 'lan' when configuring DHCP devices, so I can use my-server as a hostname and it will resolve to my home server's IP. E.g. "ssh my-server" will turn into "ssh my-server.lan" which gets resolved by the router's DNS server to the correct IP.
There may be a different video but [1] by Steven Bridges is similar to what you describe. It's not very scientific but he interviews several groups about their preferences between a very similar trick being perform with sponge balls vs with casino chips.
Putting style aside, it's ridiculous that we don't have basic common designs that "just work". I want a kettle and toaster that are expected to work for decades and can be easily repaired if something goes wrong. There are some reasons to differentiate (e.g. I want shoes that work well and last but people have different foot support needs) but in my ideal world we have shared product functionality and slap stylistic preferences on top of that.