In this case though it's a conflicting view. Let's say 40% of the province don't want to be separated, so they vote to rejoin canada (or form their own thing). Does the now independent Alberta allow it? If not, then why are they allowed to split from Canada? If they do, now this opens up the door for a infinite amount of splits.
Well, it would depend on how the new Alberta is structured. It would be its own country with its own rules. Practically speaking, it would highly depend on whether those 40% are geographically separated from the rest enough to geographically split the new Alberta.
The unit economics of orbital DC just doesn't work with today's technology. Assuming 0 ongoing OpEx(free energy), the launch cost of the satellite itself, along with solar panels, radiators as well as the chip themselves just doesn't make sense given the ~5 year operational lifespan of both the chips and the satellites.
LEO satellite orbits decay. e.g. starlink sats are ~5 year lifespan. But assuming a higher, more stable orbit, how do you replace them? There will be tens of thousands of these orbital DCs, so not really feasible to go to each one to replace some chips.
Or alternatively I guess a few massive ones, but those would need to be truly massive to accommodate the solar panels and radiator fins required.
These numbers would be ridiculous even for a software play. < 20B in revenue at almost 2T valuation? That's almost 100x revenue multiples at a not so great revenue growth rate.
Of course it can. Terms of service and contractual obligation (should) apply to governments as well. Google is perfectly capable of outlining what's acceptable use and what's not, and the government is free to accept or reject and not use the product. Google is choosing not to set the boundaries.
What does that mean? How does one come to a personal moral conclusion? Vibes?
(I take "moral framework" to mean a principled stance that gives objective grounding for a moral judgement. I agree that we can come to a moral judgement without putting it through a systematic and discursive defense, and I reject the notion that there are many moralities or that they are arbitrary, but it is also true that diverging conceptions of the basis of morality will frustrate agreement. Stopping at personal moral judgement does not lend itself to fruitful dialogue and understanding, as it constraints the domain of what is intersubjectively knowable.)
My moral framework can be different from yours. Me the individual can come to the conclusion that something is immoral when the rest of the group doesn’t agree with me. And (at least for my own moral framework) I should take action accordingly.
So I don’t need a shared framework to make the claim that something is immoral (to me).
The second is that it isn’t very interesting to stop at “personal moral judgement”. You’re having a dialogue, right? So, if you want to have a dialogue, you must explain your moral reasoning. I don’t like your parent’s use of the term “moral framework”, because it does lends itself to a relativistic interpretation - though charitably, the parent need not be a relativist, and is merely acknowledging the different stances of various moral theories. But also charitably, if we lack sufficient common moral ground, the first task is to find that moral common ground before you can discuss something with two incommensurate views in play.
Probably difference in the boundary of what programming entails too. Eg is coming up with the algo itself part of programming or only the writing the implementation part after the algo is clear.
