If a person does something wrong but is not aware that what they did is wrong, the general reaction is not to "accuse them of misconduct", but rather to explain to them what it is about their action that's wrong, after which (if they in fact have good intent) they will no longer do that action.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

On the other hand, regardless of intent, it does still make sense to say that the system is maladjusted, that the system is designed in such a way that even actors with good intentions are incentivized to do harmful things. And the question regarding the system really is clear: Does a recipient accepting money from an advertiser tend to create in them a more positive opinion regarding the advertiser than if the recipient received no money at all? To that, the answer is yes. It doesn't mean the recipient has committed "misconduct"; more likely it's just that the recipient is a well-intentioned actor in a maladjusted system.

The case of Donald Trump is a perfect example. He had conflicts of interest galore, didn't even deny them, in fact he flouted them, and many people seemed to think everything was fine.

We need to be aware not only of the existence of conflicts of interest, but also of (1) how corrosive these conflicts are, and (2) the crucial importance of designing systems to minimize the bad incentives and effects that arise from conflicts of interest. Systems, in other words, that minimize the harm that -- because of human nature -- inevitably flows even from well-intentioned people when conflicts of interest are tolerated.

My question is: Do you really need to ask that? Human nature is human nature; there's little doubt that it's happening to some extent. Virtually impossible that it's not happening at all.

The problem to me seems quite similar to campaign contributions in politics. Yes, it's indirect, and all parties can say it's innocent, no strings attached, the elected representative is not "required" to do anything. Those are words that help people ignore the reality of human nature. Money is influence.

I also am not quite sure what the post above means by "GUIs support undo". Yes, most apps,e g., on Windows, support CTRL-Z for undo. But this functionality depends on each app implementing its own undo, nothing OS-wide, and results will vary. I'm not sure what there is in GUIs that supports "undo" other than an app/user convention like CTRL-Z, which hardly seems to rise to the level of "supports undo".

Yet you don't tell us how old you are, so it's hard to get a grasp for how long you've been programming. As someone who first started programming in 1979, I notice that there are plenty of people who say they've "been programming a long time" who weren't even born when I started programming. This isn't a criticism, just a comment that we don't really have any idea how long you've been programming. I can picture a 29-year old saying the same thing you did. Time is relative, something that becomes more and more clear, I think, the older a person gets.

A lot of open source software is intended to be used by developers, or, in other words, by someone who knows what they're doing. Not all, of course. There's plenty of open source stuff out there targeted at end users, or at admin-types, non-developers. Much of it is excellent. (In fact, much of it "runs the internet".) Much is not, or is really in a semi-developed state where it needs to be improved by actual developers.

None of this is anything new. You need to be aware of how "ready for use" the open source project you choose is. By the very nature of how open source works, projects are available "in the wild" when they aren't really ready for general use.

Human psychology deals with numbers strangely. There are many who seem to think 500,000+ deaths (many preventable) from Covid are not something to be overly concerned about. Some of these same people are deeply worried about "Extremist Muslim terrorism" that has had very few victims.

So, yeah, from what I understand about growing anti-Asian crime, I do think it makes sense to be concerned. In particular, because this increase seems to be a (predictable) response to actions by many over the past year to demonize China, which any sane person knew would create a generalized animosity toward Asian-Americans. It's not like things like this have never happened before. They have, and they're quite predictable.

This is a valid rule of thumb only because transaction costs are generally much higher when buying a home than when renting. Typically 6% of the cost is siphoned off by brokers (3% to each side) and the fees people pay to take out a mortgage loan are significant. Fees you pay to start a lease generally amount to only a small fraction of these.

All this has nothing to do ROI, which measures the return that a single entity gets from an investment they make. If you want to make the ROI analogy work (which I don't think you should) one way to do it would perhaps be to compare the time invested with the amount of people the writer reaches. In that case the "ROI" of any method of writing could be super low (if nobody reads it) or super high (if everyone reads it).

Another way to look at it would be that the time to read something you cite is actually the amount of "investment" by a reader. In that case I expect that many readers experience zero return (or even negative return) on their investment of 30s to read an internet post, while they may experience incalculable, life-changing return from 8 hours spent reading a book. Or, probably less often, vice versa.

Texas, by contrast, has close to zero 'large hydro'. It's not clear to me that 'large hydro' is a non-renewable', certainly it's a lot different from most non-renewables, and it's not carbon dioxide producing. If you take that into account, then from (coal/natural gas/oil/nuclear) California has more like 53% of energy while Texas has 80%. That gives a little different perspective.

Compare, e.g., with this list, which includes hydro as a category of renewables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

A lot of it is technical, won't be comprehensible to non-musicians, but lots of interesting stuff.

Did you mean to say ". . . for folks /not/ on M1 Macbook Pros"?