TFA does not suggest malicious intent on the part of USPS. When government bodies lower in the hierarchy receive foreseeably impractical (or malicious) orders from above, even a good faith effort to implement them will result in chaos.
> Drew convinced me that we should abolish copyright through his blog[1][2]. I find it very unfortunate that he uses the copyright licenses of the software hosted on SourHut as an argument against LLMs. Abolishing copyright means abolishing copyright for everyone, even you. Even if you don't like what people do with their copies.
You're reminding me of "mutual nuclear disarmament", and the related idea that being against anyone's having nukes doesn't necessarily mean immediately getting rid of one's own nukes.
> To be against copyright is to not believe the idea of "adversarial copying".
Not believing the (or an) idea of copyright is one form of being "against" "copyright". One can oppose copyright law while still desiring a form of social enforcement for copyright-law-like ideas. Just as there are many forms of emotional abuse that are not illegal or could not be enforced if made illegal, and just as there is such thing as "abusing one's trust", there are forms of copying behavior that deserve the label of "abuse" regardless of whether the law gives a label.
> The overall cost is not low. Some illegal immigrants get benefits.
> But those costs are not seen by the businesses that push illegal immigration.
Do you have a source about the cost? As of 2023, noncitizen immigrants generally and illegal immigrants specifically were a net positive to fiscal burden [1]:
> Illegal noncitizens were only somewhat less fiscally positive per capita than noncitizens generally, and they likely reduced the deficit by at least $1.7 trillion from 1994 to 2023. Illegal immigrants of all educational attainments are also likely to have paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits. Although we adopt simple assumptions, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion significantly different from the one below. Even if illegal immigrants used benefits at the exact same rate as all noncitizens, they would still be, on average, fiscally beneficial to the United States—both by reducing the debt in real terms and by lowering debt-to-GDP.
> Almost all illegal immigrants will use the healthcare system eventually.
If by almost all you mean that most illegal immigrants get pathways to permanent residence/citizenship (unclear to me whether that's true), it's not very relevant unless you propose that after becoming legal residents illegal immigrants burden the economy/budget more than always-legal residents do. Otherwise, I would wonder whether the national birth rate issue [2] is as urgent as I've heard.
reply