yes. Most people are upset and fear losing their job because they feel their job is sub-par. In reality, that's for most of them impostor syndrome, for some could be a wake up call.
Ironic how a libertarian would impose his personal views on "the system". Doesn't work? Let it die. Too many PhDs? Perhaps, let them search for a job. If they're indeed too many, a generation of plumbers etc. will emerge naturally. No one is impeding their businesses, if anything governments worldwide are aiding big technology companies in any way possible.
> Ironic how a libertarian would impose his personal views on "the system". Doesn't work? Let it die. Too many PhDs? Perhaps, let them search for a job. If they're indeed too many, a generation of plumbers etc. will emerge naturally. No one is impeding their businesses, if anything governments worldwide are aiding big technology companies in any way possible.
It's not ironic when you understand that libertarianism is really about maximizing personal liberty for an individual, and that often means constraining the liberty of others who would stand in their way.
It's the most libertarian thing for millions of people to have very constrained lives under the rule of some wealthy person who gets to do whatever he wants.
that's not true in my opinion. Being a libertarian means first recognizing what "liberty" is. So there are many different libertarians, one for each definition, and then one for each consequence that can be inferred from that definition. If you value liberty as the maximum liberty that doesn't constrain others more than you are constrained, that is, realizing that humanity is both freedom and society, it's a very different thing than using any mean necessary to obtain your own freedom.
I understand this isn't the perspective of many that call themselves "libertarian".
Andreesen and Thiel aren’t libertarians (at least, what libertarians claim to be). They advocate for a system of extreme top level control by CEO-kings.
Security through obscurity doesn't work in isolation. It doesn't work as the only solution. It is discouraged, because it can be a panacea.
But it also doesn't hurt in many instances. Holding back your source code can be a strategic advantage. It does mean that adversaries can't directly read it (nor can your friends or allies!)
Having a proprietary protocol or file format, this is also "security through obscurity" and it may slow down or hinder an attacker. Obscurity may be part of a "defense in depth" strategy that includes robust and valid methods as well.
But it is harmful to baldly claim that "it doesn't work".
reply