That kind of like saying that Russia has free speech, you just can't say things that are prohibited by law.
One can reasonably argue that such protected categories are necessary for a just and fair society, but let's be clear about what it is we're advocating.
Potentially nothing, but apartment buildings don't move, so an artillery shell at one-hundredth the cost would probably be the preferred option anyway for nations motivated toward such things.
Well, I've seen our allies use a $249,000-a-pop FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile against a solitary soldier where a $0.49 rifle shell would do [1], so I don't price matters. Especially when we're giving the stuff away.
One of the reasons the US is viewed as such a good place to start a business is that the country will go to bat for their (favored) businesses internationally.
National security is very far from the only scenario where the government will intervene in geopolitics, for better or worse.
Capitalism would absolutely love to give you delicious and peak-quality tomatoes. If consumers were willing to pay the additional cost needed to harvest and handle more heirloom-variety tomatoes, there would be a huge incentive to provide them.
If people aren't willing to pay the premium needed, then the revealed preference is for the easily harvestable varieties. Farmers markets and local producers that sell to fewer people who will pay that premium are likewise capitalism's answer to this problem (i.e. saying "Industrial agriculture can't meet the consumers' needs, but local farmers can.")
Capitalism need not be industrial-scale, it just needs to fill consumer demand somehow (which is why small business are so crucial)
the model is available but that doesn't make it open source. That makes it model-available, or open weight, which means you can run inference on your machine, but for it to be considered open source, we'd need to know the dataset's name, the annotations on it, and the code used to train the model.
It's not like he went in out of pure malice or anything though, they were trying to hack him first. Not saying it's some morally pristine thing, but it definitely communicated what it was trying to communicate.
As an analogy, we should have empathy for homeless people stuck in poverty, but if one of them continually bikes to your house and tries to break in, is it morally dubious to eventually take their bike chain rather than just shooing them away each attempt? I imagine the moral razor would fall on similar lines.
Regarding your analogy: I think it would be more like taking the bikes of every homeless person as opposed to just the one. Would that make it more or less morally dubious?
I don't think it's quite like that, since there's no direct action aiming to antagonize poor North Korean citizens; they are suffering indirectly due to the harm done to the actual target.
In the homeless analogy, maybe the attempted-robber's friends go hungry, since he usually uses the bicycle to go to the grocery store.
To me, I don't imagine this changes the calculus much, since almost any intervention will have side-effects.
I know this is tongue in cheek, but you absolutely can be restricted from having a biological weapons factory in your basement (similar to not being able to pick "nuclear bombs" as your arms to bear).
Seems like the recipe for independence, and agreed upon borders, and thus whatever interpretation of the second amendment one wants involves exactly choosing nuclear bombs, and managing to stockpile enough of them before being bombed oneself. At least at the nation state scale. Sealand certainly resorted to arms at several points in it's history.
The second amendment only applies to the United States -- it's totally normal to have one set of rights for citizens and another set for the government itself.
In this scenario, you should expect to have a representation of around 1 woman per 4 men, if the rate of qualified candidates is 1 woman per 4 men. If you want to hire more than that ratio, you have to be doing some discarding of otherwise qualified candidates on the basis only of being men.
Sure. But even if you want to hire at about 1 women per 4 men you would need to actively do so. I.E. create a hiring policy in which she would be selected instead of one of the other equally qualified men.
Not at all! Passively choosing from the equally-qualified-candidate distribution across the board will yield representation that's right in line with that distribution.
There may be some groups that are entirely men and some that are entirely women, but the aggregate result will approach the true population of qualified candidates.
> There is a huge difference between trying to counter institutional prejudice in order to improve the quality of the student body and work being done, and whatever you think a religious “pledge of allegiance” is.
In the eyes of the advocates for each, I actually don't know that there is.
Religious pledges likely are intended to say "we want faculty who will teach and represent the values this school holds and that students expect out of this institution", which feels pretty much exactly like the rationale for DEI pledges.
reply