0x3f

> Just register these things in the IDP and let them sign into their own accounts.

And when you get blocked by whatever anti-bot tech the site is running?

Seems unlikely. All three market leaders have roughly equivalent products, even ignoring the Chinese models. Google is better vertically integrated, as well. They'll end up competing on price, or worst case capacity rationing.

I think he's just young and awkward, as we all were at some point.

When you say own you mean fractionally, or founder level share only?

The thing is even if you 'have' the equity share as an employee, you might never get liquidity. And (super obviously) most startups fail.

So even if you have a decent chunk of 'ownership', you really, _really_ need to believe in it to be working those hours. I'm talking the kind of belief built on your specialist and insider knowledge about why it's very likely to crush everything else. And even then you can get screwed!

Ferries tilt and jolt in a way that predictable-path car lifts don't.

Most 'London' airports are outside of London and they still charge a ton for parking. Captive audience. This one is unusually cheap, even for Gatwick.

I don't think car alarms detect these kinds of vibrations. It's specifically tilt and more impactful stuff. Certainly, the alarm is never going off when I get my car back via the lifts that I've used. It's probably too smooth.

Where was this? I've only seen it in London at very high end residential places. Even then it's rare. Most privately-owned public car parks in London are dilapidated and full of thieves, but still command premium pricing. It would surprise me if one bothered to build the infra for this.

That's not clear to me.

> He convinced them the domain registered in my name and address really belonged to his club

Convinced how? Often such things are via "knowing things" about the account holder.

Seems pretty relevant to a social engineering attack to have more correct pieces of info to give to support.

It's just traffic based: sales try to get you on a paid plan, or a higher tier. For some accounts they've given ultimatums ("pay for the higher tier by x date or we have to stop providing service"). But I believe those cases were e.g. online casinos doing specific things with the platform (say, evading national blocks on gambling websites) IIRC.

Only GitHub and Gitlab have a large intersection of features. You can probably choose around one from the rest of the list, if they happen to have what you need.

It's a bit of an inappropriate comparison though, since restaurants are ubiquitous and reasonable GitHub alternatives are vanishingly rare. People are quite rightly more troubled when providers in a low-cardinality space become unviable.

> If you violated the GPL, and your project was taken down, how political is that?

It's political, inherently, but it's not "only" political, or it's not necessarily political on the part of the host. As in, most practical hosts _have_ to obey US IP law. They don't _have_ to ban crypto or LLMs. The former only inconveniences or restricts me insofar as the host is unwilling to go to prison. The latter on their whims or personal views.

> Well, if you're not part of the community, what do you care?

One benefits from the availability of alternatives and a healthy market regardless.

Rents are just amounts beyond what's needed to cause the thing to exist. At the point of copying something, it already exists.

So payments for the right to do so aren't payments required to bring anything new into existence at that point, save for the legal fiction.

Now you might argue that the future copy-licencing rents are necessary to bring the _original_ creation into being. But that doesn't make them _not rents_.

But I would say that's the second assumption you're baking in here.

As in, we live in a world where e.g. the movie Toy Story exists. Now, certainly Toy Story does provide some good or value to the world. But I don't think you can assume such things provide more value than e.g. open science, free transformation of works, etc.

I get that people enjoy our current IP culture but saying certain things wouldn't exist in an IP-free world is just an argument from consequences that doesn't even really compare consequences between the two.

You assume your premise. But plenty of "intellectual work" is already done without legal cover. It just typically attracts normal profits, rather than super-normal rent-seeking ones.

Only if you assume it's sustainable until you personally die. But that seems in constant question even now.

I guess it depends on the framing: a scam perpetrated on whom? It's not a scam on active investors if you lock in a bump from guaranteed passive investors. The active investors will see gains from that bump. But on the passive investors? On wider society?

If you spot the regulator looking the other way and try to sneak one past, is that legitimate, or sketchy? What if you recently had the influence to make them look the other way or be under-resourced?

You could argue 'treason' is a better word than 'scam'.

Why can't steel be recycled or taken by force?

I think they do, actually. They just have a disconnect about it. But e.g. removing the triple lock is unpopular not just among those of an age to be affected by it.

> If there is a large war, those countries will prioritize domestic consumption and the UK will immediately stop being able to produce weapons.

Same with the iron we'd need to make our own steel.

And a current glut just makes it even cheaper for us to stockpile, vs spending on votes by propping up a failing industry.

Are they seeding it with incompetent middle management as a psy-op?

Don't most of these contingencies apply to steel in the first place?

Farming subsidies are one of the most criticized parts of the EU. My comment isn't in support of it. But even so, subsidy is quite different from compulsory purchase. The question is: why is steel special. Not in a no-action-vs-some-action way, but why so aggressive?

Ironically I think it's the same for both steel and farmers: they provide votes.

> Steel comes from iron, which you can't grow

Right, and where is the iron coming from in the scenario where we can't import steel?

I don't really care for farm subsidies either, but even ignoring that: it's quite a different level of intervention than compulsory purchase. Same with the vaccines. We didn't respond to that crisis by nationalizing AstraZeneca.

My rhetorical point is just that steel gets special treatment probably because it's politically expedient. There are large, politically-relevant parts of the country that are still emotionally tied to the idea that we're an industrial nation. People under the age of 30 still go on about Thatcher and the miners.

There's no real shortage of steel around the world that I know of. We could just stockpile it instead, for example. And in the hypothetical tail-risk scenario this is all supposed to insure against... how do we even get the raw materials for making steel anyway?

You can make this same argument about a great number of things. Why is steel any more critical than food or vaccines or the like? Indeed we got caught short of vaccines recently, and had some nontrivial consideration of running a military op against NATO member over it.

Is there even a definition of "doesn't work" that exists for you with the NHS? How inefficient and ineffective does it have to be before it's considered "not working"? Because, technically, every healthcare system on the planet has some effect.

Same for the army.

Quite a few textbook authors I know are paid well to be part of the whole scheme (kickbacks, forced yearly repurchase for the 'online' component of books, etc). So I think it varies a lot.