ewillbefull

Nice to see bors in the contributor list!

It's a bit hyperbolic, but historically Valve have been very strict about VAC bans. If your account is hacked and someone cheats, they can get it permanently VAC banned and Valve will not negotiate or be lenient about it -- ever. I know this from experience and it's well known. In this case Valve will probably remove the VAC bans because it's such a high profile mistake on their part, but you can see why people are concerned -- especially when they haven't said anything publicly yet.

I believe that in all of bitcoin's major bubbles, it has never crashed below the previous bubble's high.

I think some progress will be seen in libraries first, namely things like tendril.

https://github.com/servo/tendril

This could easily be added as a lint to the codebase.

Dealbreaker? This just means you need to play with let bindings a little bit until they improve it at some point. (Same goes for SEME regions.)

Rust convention is for 4-space indentation, not tabs. In fact, in the compiler's own code tabbed indentation fails tests. The way the playpen works is a "best of both worlds" approach I guess.

I don't know what you mean. The example they show is hello world.

The website will remember the last thing you compiled and ran on it, and display that again when you come back. Perhaps you're looking at a different code snippet.

Well, not really, I was just stretching my brain to think of criticisms you might have been alluding to. I still don't know what is overly explicit about Rust's generics.

Aside from many of the other common reasons, Rust is a fun language to code in (once you understand it well). The language design has learned a lot from other languages, and the tooling has been influenced by many other successful ecosystems (npm as a big example) and trendy workflows (the community seems a bit centered around github, which works for me).

A few examples just off the top of my head: the language doesn't hide performance tradeoffs, namespacing makes sense, "zero-cost abstractions" are beautiful and common through the ecosystem, cargo is a wonderful tool for building, creating docs, testing, etc. I've had a lot of fun using Rust to build things I really didn't need it for.

> Generics are both pervasive and difficult - they're clean unlike in C++ but they're also uncomfortably explicit.

Maybe it's because I'm used to it, but do you have an example of why you think this? I think with type inference being pervasive, I've never been annoyed by generics. Additionally with type aliases a lot of pain can be avoided.

One of the ugly parts is that call-site type parameters, when given explicitly, have an ugly (but consistent) syntax. This is probably unfixable. Another annoying part is the lack of anonymous return types, which makes some types annoying to read or even impossible to express, but work is being done to improve this now.

Also see: https://github.com/kud1ing/awesome-rust

Did you miss the obvious circular reasoning here?

This doesn't help with unused variables, which comes up just as often when doing the same thing (coding piecemeal, testing if it compiles, etc.)

While we're on the topic of Dots, my favorite way to learn a new programming language lately has been to implement a clever "solver" for this game in the language (to maximize score). I wrote one in Go a while ago, and Rust recently.

Also in my opinion this game is more fun when you're working with a finite number of moves rather than time.

Honestly, just read the brief, it goes into detail the precedent involved in their argument: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_compute...

for example...

Ninth Circuit law—which should have been controlling in this case—was the same: the “functional requirements for compatibility” between computer programs “are not protected by copyright.” Sega Enters., Ltd., v. Accolade, Inc.

Also, an API is much more than you think. An API might be Windows' system APIs which applications use to interact with the operating system -- put a license behind that and WINE is gone overnight. An API is also totally indistinguishable from a network protocol, in both a technical and legal sense.

The Copyright Act states:

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

The common belief is that an API meets this "system or method of operation" standard.

$0.01 is just arbitrary. Some people might find that too expensive, and some spammers might find it cheap enough to profit from anyway. The problem is that the threshold for affordability is in NO way attached to the profit margins of spammers, let alone the true value of the email.

And your last point is really just a specialized form of a web of trust anyway.

This will just put a lower-bound on the market for spam emails, at the cost of making legitimate email more expensive (especially at scale). It doesn't matter if it's a micropayment through bitcoin or hashcash. The only real way to solve the spam problem is a web-of-trust where spam is disincentivized because it harms your reputation in the system. That is kind-of the situation we have now, except encryption isn't baked into email yet (if it will ever be).

The other side of the debate on Sprey's comments:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...

So it's not a harm to freedom of expression if we allow your blog to exist, but we censor links to it because they're "automated"? It doesn't matter if it's automated or highly moderated. It's an expression and censoring anything like it influences the public discourse in some way.

> On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage

Public, factual information causes damage and Google is responsible because somebody else reported on it and they indexed it? And so Google should stop linking to the article which will still exist and can be found on other search engines in other jurisdictions without any effort? And we can pretend online censorship works all of a sudden now that the EU found a "good" excuse for it?

> The European Court ruled that some things should be made harder to find (revenge porn, obvious slander, spent convictions etc.).

So what does freedom of expression mean to you, then? A regulated, controlled public discourse with arbitrary rules about what the government thinks is relevant or important for people to know or read about? And it looks like you slipped "spent convictions" in there, which throws off the argument.

I think you already made your mind up.

Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest.

Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The worst thing we have here is cozy relationships between the media and the government, but alternative news sources are available everywhere and Americans are relying on them more than ever.

There are a lot of amateur day traders in the bitcoin community who just wing it. I'd say weird patterns you find are probably because of that.

I understand the Court has some role in determining intention, but the nature of the technology in the background is crucial in determining whether it violates the law. I'm confused about the implications of the ruling.

Would this ruling find me liable if I created "dumb pipe" rented antennas streamed online, like Aereo, if I didn't make it an express goal of the service to watch television? Or say, a filesharing service which has plausible deniability (like client-side encryption) and no expressed intentions for its use to violate the Copyright Act, but that can incidentally be used by consumers to do so? Could the court simply call those kinds of services/software "technological obfuscation" and consider it forbidden? (I believe the court has strayed toward this argument in Grokster and other cases unfortunately.)

If so, I can't make a fair, fundamental distinction between that and any other cloud-like service. Devoting a section to "distinctions" to make lower-court precedent messier cheats a proper interpretation of the facts and will create ambiguity.

I really hope I'm misunderstanding this!

The right to be forgotten is way different than a robots.txt file...

You going to have to come up with a better defense; the "it's just a different culture" and "you wouldn't understand" and "our values are different" does NOT insulate you from criticism. Your 'balance' is poorly reasoned, and should be openly mocked and despised by anyone in western society.

This ruling affects everybody because of its balkanization effect on the Internet. Other than that, I just feel bad for Europeans who throw fundamental human rights away in favor of populism.

> The law isn't about squelching free speech, it's just trying to keep this information from being so easily available.

You're just mincing words here. There are profound speech arguments to be made when someone is coerced or threatened for publishing _facts_. It is the same nanny-state crap that Europe invokes when it criminalizes offending people, and they have an army of people like you to jump on their bandwagon.

The ruling is technologically illiterate. It fails to appreciate the growing ability for anyone to access and index public information as time goes on. It fails to appreciate its jurisdiction and effectiveness. It fails to make sound rational justification that separates the role of a newspaper from a news aggregator.

Most important of all, it gives the government an enormously broad -- and practically limitless -- ability to remove the expression and dissemination of information based on purely subjective and even temporal characteristics. Europe's freedom of expression laws are a joke with endless carve-outs for "public stability" and "offense" which will only become increasingly useful tools to regulate and censor legitimate public discourse.

Too bad for you, these laws won't work and when they fail it will be embarrassing. In the short term, enjoy the further rot of economic growth in the region due to compliance costs of this and other ridiculous judgments.

If you think about it, it's pretty much the same thing as twitter, except the social graph is built more implicitly. In exchange for a larger selection of relevant content, you have to sift through more noise. But it probably feels better to vote if you know your vote counts differently for some users. You're no longer just one number in a statistic, but part of a much more complicated ranking system. Best of all, your votes significantly affect your own experience on the website.

A dynamic social graph like that would probably obviate the need for even categorizing content, let alone "jumping ship" when the community decays.

There are some drawbacks though. If you implemented it in reddit/hacker news, there would no longer be a "front page of x" to serve as a symbolic milestone for your submission. Without context, "2000 upvotes" has ambiguous importance. Also, a different ranking system exists for each cluster in your social graph, which sounds like a fun engineering problem.

No, but you should be able to create Wine.