You should copy not needing photos on CVs. Doing so introduces an unacceptable risk of bias.

That's why I think it should be regulated, and don't find the arguments about stifling innovation to ever be convincing.

What is the actual proof of that?

This supports that it seems to be an edge case.

> Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff.

And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.

> And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here?

Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?

Stuff like that is why I can never use Apple products. It's my device, not theirs; I own it, I'm not renting it. Let me do what I want with it. Or be honest and rent it out to people instead.

That's not Apple that's everyone. Computers randomly crashing hasn't been a thing for a long time.

This sounds very much like an edge case. Why didn't you use Windows or MacOS on the mini PC instead? Was it because you were unable to do so?

> Or how about the huge fight that systemd has been (and continues to be).

That fight was over pretty much when Devuan and Artix formed.

> If we imagine a world where os init was regulated by the EU,

The EU would only be interested in regulating this if it were an OS init controlled by a monopoly abusing their position.

What about if you just don't feel they are a good fit anymore, even if you can't show why based purely on numbers.

Is any amount of advance notice sufficient to allow that?

Collaboration can be managed by offline servers that facilitate that. Not everything needs to be in a web page.

It can be hard to compare the two since we can't compare their intelligence overall as one thing, but have to compare specific subsets, showing dogs and pigs are intelligent in different ways.

I think any claim that one is outright more intelligent than the other is dubious.

The point is when intelligence of animals is evaluated like this, it's evaluated in very limited scopes, e.g. arithmetic abilities, mental time travel capabilities, abstract thinking capabilities, etc.

To generalize the results from one limited scope test to intelligence in general is flawed and wrong.

> The experimental evidence seems to indicate that pigs are probably smarter than dogs.

It indicates nothing of the sort.

You're making a common mistake here, in conflating pigs being compatible with toddlers based on a very limited scope test, with being comparable to toddlers in general, which they are not remotely close to being.

Pigs are comparable to dogs, but dogs are much more impressive overall. Lookup dogs like Chaser, for example, and show me a pig that has ever come close.

I don't think it's that he is speaking garbage, he is basically talking about digital physics which is a real theory being considered and researched, not pseudoscience.

But he doesn't work with the scientific community at all, he just writes his long essays and uses his own terms and ignores anyone else doing similar work. He then gets upset when scientists don't just defer to him.

That's one way to look at it sure. From a purely force against force perspective though, they didn't come anywhere close to losing.

If I come in to your country, invade it, and have complete dominion for 20 years, than I've successfully invaded your country. Victoriously.

If I then change my mind and decide to leave, after 20 years of having a provisional government because I got bored, then yeah, my victory still stands, and the rest is details and semantics.

> It would be like claiming victory against the Nazis if after some years both the US and USSR left Germany, and in the following day the Nazis were setting up concentration camps again.

If they had held dominion over the Nazis for the entire time they were there and left voluntarily because they felt all of a sudden it wasn't there fight, it wouldn't be wrong to do so.

It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out.

What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.