ColanR

> if someone wants to live in isolation, then they probably don't care and aren't affected very much by society's policies

Or they care too much, or society has driven them away, or they just don't like the population density, or it's cheaper, or they like the countryside better. See: the increasing number of people moving to the country and the popularity of Musk's Starlink project, indicating that remote people are invested in society.

I think that making the assumption that the people who live closer together have a better handle on how to run the country (society != country) needs a lot of justification. The large fraction of the population that lives less densely should not be disregarded as somehow 'less valuable'.

As I referenced above, the last time we tried to weight the value of different people it didn't turn out to be such a great idea. Skin color (the 3/5ths compromise, if you didn't get the reference) or geographic location, the value of a person or their vote shouldn't be tampered with.

That's the way it was originally, when only people who owned land could vote (not the men-only part). It was a basic test of responsibility, similar to the 501-karma downvote requirement on HN. Holding land wasn't that hard, but it did indicate a baseline.

Unless you're thinking of only allowing certain political or moral viewpoints to vote? That sounds fairly dystopian, no matter what one believes.

Edit: we used to have something else like that - a certain subset of the population only got 3/5 of a whole vote. But I really doubt that's what you want.

Mostly it looks like the discussion devolved past the point of value.

> I'm more that willing to vote for a Republican that isn't just a party shill, and has reasonable views on things like gay rights, abortion, the war on drugs, military spending, healthcare, etc, but I have yet to see even a single one.

It sounds like what you're saying is that you'll vote for any Republican that leans Democrat.

> I have yet to see any good faith efforts to govern on the part of Republicans

That sounds super partisan.

> Republican's primary purpose in life is to grab more power

At this point, I've heard both parties say that about the other.

You need 501 karma or more to downvote.

So what does this mean for potential recounts? Would they still mean anything, or is it pretty much known at this point?

> I don't think Plan 9 has a good "orchestration" story itself

I'm not super familiar with plan 9, but given what I do know, I'm pretty sure that could be done with an rc script. I'm pretty sure that a) you can fork processes after starting them on remote systems, and b) you can query remote systems to figure out which ones have free resources. Given that, it's just a shell / rc script away. Then you just need another script to do the management. ;)

I'd render a guess that the 'ugh' has to do with the general assessment that systemd falls prey to the same flaws that GP identified in the onion layers of orchestration and containerization systems: it's unnecessarily complicated.

It was on topic to what GP was replying to, though. It's fine for discussions to wander.

I wonder where else the Neanderthals might be mentioned in old stories.

I'm surprised you're being downvoted. This is an important facet of the history of slavery that people tend to forget / ignore today.

Which again is strange, since he was found with $3500 on him.

> hacked or stolen id

Even that would be tough, since I'd guess facial recognition would detect that.

If someone wants to check, I'd bet he at least forked or starred the github repo. A script to pull the list of those people, minus anyone whos been active since april 2017, would probably show his account.

> too homophobic to be on Mozilla's board

I do enjoy the irony that Mozilla seems to have gone downhill ever since he left / got kicked out. The people replacing him, IIRC, aren't as knowledgeable or expert as he was. But then, I am somewhat a fan of pure meritocracy.

I imagine that google can do on-the-fly translation because they can eat the cost of the servers running the translation. Best I've seen for firefox uses deepl, which I've heard (on HN) is better than google translate.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/to-deepl/

> It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but...

That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.

Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave.

> not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset

Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal.

> your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part

Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...

Indeed. However, note how small the sample size is, which makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions. Quote from p14:

> Finally, we considered the possibility that seniority may be at play and that gender simply coincides with seniority. We recognized that two of the three female Justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, are more junior on the Court and that each is interrupted far more frequently than Justice Ginsburg. In addition, Table 1 provides some provisional support for the seniority hypothesis because of the most senior Justices - Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer — only Ginsburg and Breyer are interrupted at high rates. In contrast, the more junior Justices — Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito — account for the other seven high interruption rates.

I wish people would emphasize this more. Bitcoin isn't anonymous, and with the legal requirements for reporting transactions, much of what happens on there can be corellated to real-world identities. Far as privacy goes, it's probably a step backwards even from bank accounts and credit cards since there's no warrant needed to access it.

I wonder if it's worth also observing how often men would interrupt other men, and see if the men are actually interrupting the women with a greater frequency.

I remember reading the Song of Roland in high school. It's a fairly famous, old Christian epic poem from the 11th century.

In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility.

Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.

And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.

Sounds like the UPS confirms there was a package and it got lost. https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-says-it-lost-tucker-carl...

The (real) reasons for it shutting down were never given.

However, at the time it was theorized that in the event the maintainers had found a fundamental flaw, disclosing that flaw by issuing a patch would immediately jeopardize all preexisting truecrypt containers by revealing a method for breaking them. That would be untenable, and so the only alternative would be to shut down the entire project and recommend no further use of the software - as was done.

A subsequent audit did not identify any such security flaw, so the prevailing theory is now that the maintainers were forced to stop work by a governmental agency. It's considered safe and now known as veracrypt.

However, the question I have is whether a single crowdsourced security audit would be capable of finding a flaw that it took the developers themselves years (decades?) to identify.

The difference is, most news outlets were spending their time saying the coronavirus was less severe than the flu.

eh, web applications are overrated. :)

I think you're right, this is a great way to move forward, especially if it's possible to put a bit of distance between the old youtube-dl and the new project.

Hopefully, it wouldn't require as much effort as when a lot of the UNIX utilities were rewritten to get properly licensed versions back in the 80s - I remember a description of how they were rewritten from being cpu-optimized to being memory-optimized to avoid any code similarities.

The trick, I guess, would be to restructure the code so that the new "dl-webvideos" project would be hard to construe as a continuation of the original project.

The other trick would be, that the new solution has to be started fast to avoid losing momentum.

It's git - what do you need low-latency for? Download directories, trees, as the initial requests, then send a second request for the source code you want to download. Then the bottleneck is download speed instead of latency.

So it looks like the takedown notice has nothing to do with the actual developer of youtube-dl. I.e., the developer could distribute their code somewhere else and the RIAA would be left playing whack-a-mole.