lone_haxx0r

I never referred to that example.

Stallman has said many "problematic" things apart from defending "consensual pedophilia".

I didn't say that everything he says is objectively true.

Some things he says are objectively true.

Advocating for the legalization of "consensual pedophilia" (whatever that means) is not an objective truth, it's an opinion.

Stallman is the least hypocritical person I've ever seen. So, that's not happening unless he changes his mind about something he said.

Even if he changes his mind about some subjective things, he will keep saying other things that are objectively true but people don't want to accept.

You're neglecting how a group of ignorant lawmakers could simply pass a law that forces secure-boot so your computer can only run proprietary OSes. Then they can force OS makers to only allow app store installs.

If you're logically consistent, then outlawing encryption implies outlawing computers and mathematics.

We are venturing straight into a totalitarian nightmare, and are totally fine with it.

And how would you not allow to abuse this session system? Would you make it more 'transactional' than cookies or what?

After they abandoned 8chan, I don't think I'll ever trust this company again.

Do you mean Sourceforge, Softonic or both?

Maybe we should try a system where there's no property and the state takes care of every aspect of the citizen's life.

People wouldn't need to work as much and the government would be honest and nice to everyone (except filthy dissidents).

I'm sure it won't end in a totalitarian bloodshed.

Do you think that an open source dating app or a decentralized dating protocol would be a good idea?

They're just playing by the rules of the game.

If there are any assholes in this situation, they're the people who set up the patent system and the ones thay defend its existence.

I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of patents is not only unfair, it's ineffective at what it supposedly tries to achieve (fostering innovation).

For every monetary incentive of developing something new, there are 10 obstacles because of patent law. Patents are a hindrance more than an aid.

Looks cool. What's your censorship policy?

Well, when you are slowly but steadily descending into an Orwellian nightmare, it's natural for "every little thing" to be a sign.

Care to give any examples?

Have you thought that maybe their biases align with your ideology so you just don't notice them?

So, the solution to big corporations employing asshole tactics to lure you into selling your attention is big government using your tax money to make a heavily censored, totalitarian version of Facebook? Ok.

The whole article is futile attempt to try to embellish that concept.

> drop off rates are extremely high for MOOCs.

I see this statistic tossed around quite a lot.

Maybe it's because many MOOCs require you (or at least urge you) to login and officially "enroll" in their course to see the content.

Many times I've been just looking around a MOOC out of curiosity, but I'm required to "enroll" in it in order to see the material. So I login, "enroll", take a quick look at the content and forget about it.

It's not necessarily a fault of the MOOC format.

By that same logic, it's unfair for attractive people to choose who they date, because they're in a position of power.

> if you still [discriminate] it comes at your own loss.

This applies to companies of any size.

A job contract is naturally a relationship between two entities: employee and employer.

Sure, some people in some countries have tried (sometimes successfully) to undermine this principle, but it's akin to forcing people to marry in groups.

The holocaust and slavery fall in the realm of physical violence, or at least coercion.

Violence and coercion don't logically follow from racial differentiation. One may point out the differences between populations of different races, but that wouldn't justify attacking any individual from those populations.

My comment is framed inside that basic (and obvious) principle. Choosing a partner or an employee is not a violent or coercive act.

> If you're hiring someone, you're always in a position of power.

What? Can you explain the reasoning behind this statement?

> we've (mostly) decided that unfairly classifying someone based on correlated but non-causal characteristics is wrong, EVEN in the extreme that you're right more often than you're wrong if you make that assumption.

Ironically, the only places where it's legally prohibited or frowned upon to use these heuristic techniques are situations that people have arbitrarily (heuristically or conveniently) decided.

For example: It's "not fair" to hire someone because they're white (and consequently have a higher chance of being wealthy and hence a higher change of being educated.)

But it's "fair" to choose a love partner based on their height, their waist-to-hip ratio, their weight (and hence having a higher chance of giving birth to healthy offspring, better physical protection, etc.).

Maybe it's hypocritical, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. Maybe being hypocritical helps us survive.

The thing I hate about them is the backwards declaration syntax.

var x:i32 = 5; ugh, it makes no sense.

Thanks. I sometimes miss those cues and don't know if I should take things at face value.

> They can be identified by their independent-bookstore tote bags, their “Book Lover” mugs, or—most reliably—by the bound, printed stacks of paper they flip through on their lap. They are, for lack of a more specific term, readers.

Is there some hidden irony in the pointlessness of this paragraph?

strcpy_s has no manual entry on Ubuntu, while "man strcpy" and "man strncpy" work as expected.

Why would that be?

> With ICANN and registrars, there is a point you can directly attack legally, and a root of trust.

For my use case, that's a problem rather than an advantage, as I'm not a holder of important IP works, trademarks, etc.

Call me when Rust becomes the interface to the most used kernel in servers and supercomputers.

I prefer technology to deal with the technical issues and individuals to deal with their individual issues.

Tech can't possibly cater to everyone's special needs.

I'm totally fine with domain names being the interface between thr protocol and the human user. All other mappings (e.g. legal names) fall in the realm of human politics.