I disagree, why can’t land ownership be in sealed documents much like court documents can be sealed? It’s still registered as before but the documents are available to just anyone anytime without reason and they stay out of the clutches of the sleazy data dealers and such that get my address this way and send me junk and harass me in other ways.
Obfuscation past this would still be possible as you said but the default should be privacy to the owner.
Because ultimately, the reason could be made up. ANYONE could say they want to purchase the property and make an enquiry anyway. People can always lie or come up with fantastical stories.
The problem is the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. The solution is good, the modern pillaging of the data is not.
The government should have no responsibility in facilitating land deals. If you want to buy land, buy it from the markets, and if the owner has not listed it, then likely they don’t want to sell it. And if you really want to buy it and think maybe if I just show them how much I’m willing to pay for it they’d sell, but they still haven’t listed it and you don’t know anyone that knows the owner, either tough luck or hire a private investigator.
The government should only be involved in the ownership transfer process after a sale has been made.
If you go to the government and ask about a piece of land, they should only be able to tell you if it’s owner by someone or by the state itself. If the latter, then you can buy it from them.
Everything else seems like it exists due to lobbying.
Sure, but the solution that makes it a “solved problem” is—exactly—what is used now.
> How to you buy a car from someone?
Governments make publicly available title records by VIN for cars. If you are financing a car, the financer will probably insist on verifying it just as the person financing your home purchase will want similar verification.
If you aren't financing it (more likely with cars than real estate) maybe you won't do any verification first, accept a pink slip or deed at face value, and file the required paperwork with the government to record the transfer, accepting more risk.
EDIT: But even if you are doing it without financing, the risk profile is different: an expensive car is a cheap plot of land, which makes the opportunity for profit from fraudulently selling real estate to people who are willing not to independently verify title a lot greater per act than with cars. There's a reason that the saying is “If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.” and not “... a car to sell you.”
If your tree falls on my house, I need to know who to sue for damages. If your failure to adequately look after drainage causes flood conditions, same. Insert any number of ways your property could cause damage to the person or property of another and you have a valid reason for why its ownership information needs to be public.
Why wouldn't operators of algorithms that produce novel inventions attempt to patent their output or even automate the process so that the patenting occurs with little to no human intervention?
I'd argue we aren't very far from this point. Computers have already been used to make novel inventions. I think we could see an explosion in computer generated inventions if physical reasoning, reasoning about how objects move with respect to each other, continues to improve. Previously used approaches, such as genetic algorithms, have difficulty solving problems like inventing a new type of lock or clock escapement which require multiple moving parts.
Yes sorry I was referring to Scattered Minds. I have just started The Myth of Normal and there is definitely overlap but SM is specific to ADHD. TMoN is sort of a synthesis of all of his books (Including The Realm of Hungry Ghosts at least, which I’ve read. Not sure about any of his others)
Crazy thought, why not use something like super cooling or pressure get things aligned and then just prevent them from returning back? In other words prevent it from “de-aligning” or returning to the unaligned state? It seems this would be easier.
I think you're romanticizing it. Until RHEL and LTS releases for Debian/Ubuntu, most distros you never knew if running and update was going to break something because there simply wasn't effective quality control testing in the hobbyist distros. Best you could do was run a version behind, but that hurt if you needed security updates.
There were plenty of people and small highly knowledgeable shops and academics that thought 6 hours fixing a bug after custom compiling a patch was fine and normal (and a RHEL subscription at least meant RedHat would have a team doing that part for you if absolutely necessary), but its not the way companies operated. RHEL at least meant whatever release was stable and an actual QA team put patches through their paces on various hardware and configurations (especially those enterprise high end server configs with special SCSI/RAID controllers, high end network cards, and other chipset other distros simply didn't have the means to test on). The QA/support team wasn't bug reports and guys on usenet going "it works for me, you should have gotten the exact same hardware I have, or be willing to go through the code and figure it out and patch it, and submit it to the source, like a good user should". Or tell you go back to Micro$oft if you want support for your storage controller that the kernel module for worked fine in the last version. Those were the zealots, the rest were sys admins with too much other things on their hands to do than deal with Slackware or whatever the hot distro was on distrowatch.
My Redhat experience always seemed to devolve into "this package that I want has a dependency that isn't listed yet..." (cue 2 hours of recursively and manually tracking down dependencies on the early web).
But I was a lot younger and didn't know a lot of what I do now, so was probably doing everything RPM wrong.
I had the dependency spiral issue on every distro (I played with quite a few), compiling with something like Gentoo made it worse. RPM Forge existed, I think the Linux experience in general was bad back then, and RedHat actually was one of the least problematic. Until Ubuntu, it was the easiest and most approachable to use for novices.
Using redhat before yum, meant visiting rpmfind.net and manually collecting what you needed.
In some ways, RHEL is still like that, because popular packages are usually a major version or two behind if they're even there at all. You have to hunt down an EPEL that has whatever you need.
Yeah, I don't miss the old days. Like another poster though, I remember apt-get being decent while pre-yum RedHat was still pretty bad.
But I also realize my perspective was that of a hobbyist, not an enterprise sysadmin who was probably upgrading to well-known versions through known paths.
I worked with sysadmins who used rpm based distros back then and their experience was basically mine: hunting down the right rpms that both satisfied the constraints and actually worked.
If you were running Apache fine, I think Linux in the late 90s was the work horse of web servers. That might have been the one thing that just worked. I was using it as a workstation and for everything else. Try getting your window manager to work with your Xserver and graphics card. Upgrade a package that needs a newer packlage, that needs another package that no one has built yet, so now you need to custom compile the library, but if it replaces the existing library it breaks something else that relies on the older library.
That's inbetween figuring out how to get things to compile and the dependencies of dependencies, etc.
I got Linux to work, but it was also a love hate relationship, when I got it working, it worked and worked for months, but I had almost a PTSD reaction when it was time to upgrade anything, I knew what was coming and I was afraid.
It was not at either fun arcade any time that I visited which was quite a bit. I do remember it being at a showbiz pizza though. I think the one by the Kmart and the sporting goods store off
Vets.
