You're kind of proving their point: People seem to use common names (ACA, Obamacare, DoD) regardless of whether they abide by statute (PPACA) or executive meme-forcing (DoW).
> No (you have to use it at the register for Costco to know you were there),
Not the case where I am: Costco scans everyone's card upon entry into the store.
> and they don't track your every movement in store either,
It might: Costco certainly uses security cameras, and it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras. Perhaps someone who has worked with Costco in security / loss prevention could chime in.
> and they don't track your every movement outside the store either,
Probably true, although who knows whether Costco purchases data about its members from brokers?
> and there isn't a standard way to say "I don't want this" which they nonetheless choose to ignore.
I think you're talking about the equivalent of cookies in the real world, in which case I'd generally agree.
> Costco scans everyone's card upon entry into the store.
Not the case where I am: You just ask for a "code 99", because they are legally required to sell alcohol to nonmembers where I am. I'm sure there are other loopholes too ("I want to browse to see if I want to join"), but nonetheless, no tracking for me.
> it's possible that Costco may be using some sort of AI / facial recognition software alongside the cameras
It's possible that they have a magic genie that grants wishes to shoppers who rub the right pallet, but if we have no evidence of either, we need not entertain such hypotheticals.
> Probably true, although who knows whether Costco purchases data about its members from brokers?
Those brokers are literally the people to whom we're comparing Costco. If Costco must outsource the act in question to the brokers even in the analogy, then Costco is not analogous to the brokers.
Thank you for taking the time to respond here. Thank you also for sharing your point of view, use case, and where you are coming from. With that said, would you mind sharing a few words on a couple questions?:
1. Does it take as much effort to opt-in to your feedback mechanism as it takes to opt-out? If not, why not?
2. If you want a thing ('feedback', 'a signal', data that is helpful to YOU), but getting it has this negative effect on others, what would happen if you preferenced others over yourself, and did with less of the thing?
Why would we care what they think? Depending on the government we're talking about, that could be an ignominious distinction. One government that comes to mind most recently focused its efforts on creating fake memes and myspace pages of political opponents, to troll them, while the same government failed to provide basic services to its people (and continues to do so).
Instead of asking the government what words mean (Orwell wrote on this idea), we can just ask the people what the words mean. And the people say that 'farmer' includes folks doing the actual cultivation, even if they don't own a thing.
Well, with the exception of Hong Kong, which isn't exactly a farming mecca, Singapore, and Eswatini, all other English speaking countries are democratic. Which means that the government and the people are the very same thing, so when the people have decided that's what farmer is, that's what farmer is to basically everyone (there are always outliers who like to go against the grain, of course).
> we can just ask the people what the words mean.
There's an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words". People will make up bullshit if you ask them. More revealing is to look at how people actually use the word "farmer" in practice. And it turns out that we do — and then record that use in a book known as the dictionary. Like I said in an earlier comment, it echoes the same.
> And the people say that 'farmer' includes folks doing the actual cultivation
Sure. There are also people who use the word "farmer" to refer to someone who creates web/social media content. But these are outlier uses. Obviously all words have been made up on the spot, and can be made up on the spot (again) any time you so wish. You've not stumbled upon any kind of revelation there. But in going that way you've made it clear that you're not paying attention to the discussion that is taking place.
> democratic. Which means that the government and the people are the very same thing
This is an unrealistic, idealistic assumption which evidence does not bear out. Examples: Ask people whether they think "farmer" includes non-owning cultivators; Look at majorities voting and losing due to things like the electoral college; Look at gerrymandering seeking to minimize government representation of the people.
If the government and the people are indeed the very same thing, then we can just ask the people, because according to you, the government agrees with the people anyways, or it is undemocratic.
> People will make up bullshit if you ask them.
In general, this goes double for governments. As for this example, it's impossible for the majority of people to "make up bullshit" for word meaning, because the meaning of a word is what most people say it is.
On the other hand, it's totally possible for a government to "make up bullshit" in that case.
> There are also people who use the word "farmer" to refer to someone who creates web/social media content.
There are also people (perhaps even governments!) who exclude non-owning cultivators from their personal definition of "farmer", but that is an outlier use, in some cases only applicable in niche contexts, like tax law. Most people do not use such a definition.
> you're not paying attention to the discussion that is taking place
Please don't attack other posters. That behavior is perhaps better suited for more well-known social media sites. You are smart and capable of making your point without attempting to detract from me as a person.
> Ask people what they think "farming" includes non-owning cultivators
"Farming" usually refers to all that surrounds the entire activity. That includes farmers, farmhands, supportive family, etc. But we've been talking about "farmer".
With that, I'll assume you accidentally mistyped "farmer". Let's take a look at a practical example. Soybean and cattle farmers have recently been all over the news with stories about their current low/high profitability. Do the masses watching the news understand these people as being the hired hands out in the field/in the barn collecting a fixed wage? Or do they understand these people as being the business owner with a product to sell?
> because the meaning of a word is what most people say it is.
Not quite. The meaning of the word is how the speaker (or author) has decided to use it.
But, yes, since we are currently talking about what most people consider the word to mean as a general rule, not a specific person using it in a particular way, "farmer" is deemed to be the business owner. We know this not only from anecdotal observation but also because there are people whose job it is to determine how people use words and that is what they have determined is most common.
The game chose to use the word differently, in a less traditional way, but the discussion has made it clear that we aren't talking about that specific instance. Going there would be nonsensical.
> Please don't attack other posters.
The computer screen you are looking at cannot attack you. Perhaps what you really mean is that your emotions are leaving you to feel unpleasant? These feelings stem from the mind's view of the world not matching the reality it is starting to understand. This confusion, for want of a better word, can feel like an attack of sorts. However, it does not stem from external force. It is an internal process. When this happens, it is time for personal introspection.
comes from the Middle English word ferme, meaning "rent" or "fixed payment," which in turn comes from the Anglo-French fermer ("to rent") and medieval Latin firma. These terms are ultimately rooted in the Latin word firmus, meaning "strong" or "firm". The modern agricultural meaning developed because land was often held under a fixed-payment lease, or "fee farm," and since most such land was agricultural, the terms became synonymous.
Feels to me that demos who disagree tend to make the politically-expedient substitute "peasant" without thinking too much about it
some French folks might also think of tax-collectors..
Yes, lets! No need to complicate this: Ask a sufficiently large sample of people whether they think a non-owner who cultivates land on a farm is a farmer, and you will find that most do. For more confirmation, consult a dictionary to see whether the term includes this person (hint: it does).
> "farmer" is deemed to be the business owner
Since we are currently talking about what most people consider the word to mean as a general rule, not a specific person using it in a particular way, "farmer" is deemed to be more expansive than that, including non-owners whose job is cultivation on a farm. We know this not only from anecdotal observation but also because there are people whose job it is to try to determine how people use words, and that is what they have determined is most common.
> The meaning of the word is how the speaker (or author) has decided to use it.
Not quite. The meaning of a word is what most people say it is. If a speaker uses an incomprehensible, made-up word, and the audience derives no meaning from the word, then there is no meaning in the word. The speaker has failed to convey the meaning in their head, into words.
> [extensive snide defense of your personal attacks on HN posters]
Your insistence that your attacks on other posters are okay because you typed them onto your screen is unfortunate. Please consult the HN guidelines on the matter, rather than your pre-existing opinions.
> The meaning of a word is what most people say it is.
Interesting. Most people say that "gift" is a present. A much smaller set of people — those who speak German — say it is poison. That could lead to some awkwardness (even death). Luckily that's not how it actually works. That idea is logically flawed in so many ways.
> including non-owners whose job is cultivation on a farm.
Okay. Why, then, do you believe people are so concerned about the soybean farmers collecting a fixed wage? It is not like low soybean prices means anything to them. They get paid either way. Why would there be consideration for a bailout be extended to them on top?
> The speaker has failed to convey their meaning in their head, into words.
A rambling speaker may lose sight of what they were trying to say as the growing combination of words start to pile on, but a single word is highly unlikely to lose the intent. If you intended "foo" to mean one thing when you said it, you are still likely to consider "foo" to mean the same thing when you revisit what you produced a few minutes later. So, no, this is not true in any meaningful sense. The meaning is encoded just fine.
Third-party consumers may misinterpret it, sure, but that's their problem. It wasn't produced for them anyway.
> Your insistence that your attacks on other posters are okay because you typed them onto your screen is unfortunate.
"Okay" is found nowhere in said comment. Rather, it explains that what you claim is impossible. A computer screen cannot attack you. It goes on to speculate on what you did experience and that remains the most likely explanation.
> Please consult the HN guidelines on the matter
I see nothing in there about summoning a computer screen to launch an attack, I'm afraid. It is very possible that we do not have a shared understanding of words here (we've already established that as being so elsewhere). Your usage holds force, of course. You are the producer in this case. But that does mean I am in the position of being the consumer misinterpreting it, possibly.
After reading the portion of the article made available to readers who do not opt to pay, none of it supports the claim "health insurance companies aren't the main villain of the U.S. health system". At best, it presents other issues plaguing the system, none so much as insurance companies.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking: Did we think 32 bits across each of the 1024 dimensions would be necessary? Maybe 32768 bits is adding unnecessary precision to what is ~1024 bits of information in the first place.
