nulbyte

> Yes, there are people who randomly click on one end of the scale or the other, but the assumption is that on average the portion of these people is stable.

That assumption is predicated first on the idea that people can and will tell you their likelihood to recommend within a reasonable degree of accuracy. I don't think they do.

1: https://www.xminstitute.com/data-snippets/gap-consumer-recom... 2: https://hbr.org/2019/10/where-net-promoter-score-goes-wrong

> If you believe in that core assumption that NPS measures word of mouth, then this interpretation of "likely to snag some other customers on my way out the door" is a sensible one.

But that's not the scale given to the respondent. The scale is given as going from "not at all likely" to "very likely" to recommend. There isn't an option for likely to recommend against. The low end of the scale probably captures some, but to assume it is near 100% is a mistake.

I would go a step further: NPS is a garbage metric.

First, you start by assuming your customers can even reasonably ascertain their likelihood to recommend. They can't; there are people who answer 10 but will never recommend, and there are people who answer 0 but already have and will again.

Next, you assume your customers are idiots and don't know how an 11-point scale works by adjusting the midpoint: Instead of 5, the middle is now 7 and 8.

Then you realize there are two many numbers, so you throw several out by reducing your 11-point scale to a 3-point scale, after which you re-interpret "unlikely to recommend" as "likely to snag some other customers on my way out the door."

Finally you calculate your 'net promoters' by subtracting the percentage of low scores from the percentage of high scores to give you a nice round number that doesn't correlate with what's actually happening in the real world.

And this is just what happens when you do it 'the right way.'

NPS is said to measure growth using loyalty as a proxy. But then, what does that have to do with recommendations? Nothing.

> many daily interactions happen with colleagues who are in a different location and/or timezone

I don't work for JPMorgan, but I experience this every day. My boss is in another state. Fellow team members are in other states. Folks in departments we work closely with are in other states or even countries.

The top brass loves to talk about the supposed benefits of talking shop with colleagues in line at the coffee shop in the lobby. But they tend to forget a few things: a) I'm not interested in talking shop standing in line for coffee, b) I'm not paid enough to live near or commute to HQ, and c) normies like me make up the majority of the company.

I like my job. I like my company. I just wish the bigwigs would get a clue that they don't, in fact, have all the answers, and they never will.

Taking the most sensible meaning of renounce, the court in Micro Star v. Formgen opined exactly the opposite of what you claim:

"It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned."

https://casetext.com/case/micro-star-v-formgen-inc

As for reclaiming a transferred copyright, it's possible, but complicated. It also takes at least 35 years, which is likely too long to be of practical use to most folks.

Mozilla's privacy-leading track record includes making Google the default search engine, running opt-in-by-default privacy-violating experiments, such as the Mr Robot fiasco[1], and opt-in-by-default collaboration with advertisers[2].

I still use Firefox, but I try to stay aware of changes, precisely because of Mozilla's privacy-leading gaffe record.

1. https://itsfoss.com/firefox-looking-glass-controversy/

2. https://www.pcmag.com/news/firefox-mozilla-data-collection-f...

> I'm with a modern European bank though, I wouldn't be surprised if the mainframe-lowing US banks that do everything via overnight batch jobs are incapable of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if your European bank still relies quite heavily on its mainframes. The mainframe offers high availability, reliability, and, contrary to popular belief, high throughput. Batch processing is just one thing they're good at; real-time processing at high speed is another.

NAT didn't make remote attacks harder, the default inbound deny rule did. NAT is not the firewall itself, it's just one of the things the firewall can do. Telephone companies are also ISPs, and they are and continue to be quite inept when it comes to securing their own networks, so NAT without a default inbound deny rule is not secure.

This matters in a very meaningful way. Have you seen how many enterprising but clueless consumers click random buttons until whatever they are trying to do works? They often don't know or care about other ramifications until it's too late.

Arbitration clauses have been upheld regularly in the United States.

> It’s expensive (for what it is)...

I host my instance on an always free VM, don't put much work toward maintenence, and haven't had a problem with federation. Post migration is not really a thing from a shared instance, I don't think, so yeah, that sucks.

Honestly, the most expensive part for me is the domain, because I shelled out for a spiffy premium domain. But I'm weird.

Not Excel, but LibreOffice Calc, here. It's just a biweekly budget, helps with making sure Ive acheduled my bills for the month and tracks savings.

Toward the end of every year, I go through the ritual of preparing to move back to ledger and getting files ready. And shortly after the start of the year, I abandon it. Maybe one year I will stick with it. Maybe.

Yes, the experience is the point. But the memory afterward can be just powerful. Visual and tactical stimuli can enhance the memory of the experience, long after it occurred.

Time is very different from space.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/time-yes-dimension-n...

The Foundation has lots to do with Firefox; it literally owns the corporation that develops it.

That said, agreed, I'm not sure what's left for the foundation to do without advocacy staff.

> How do you think that the video content is going to be stored and served if not through paid infrastructure?

Secondary doesn't mean nonexistent, it comes after the primary thing, content creation.

When the Internet was younger, people willingly paid for privilege of sharing content. Creation was the primary motivation; costs were a secondary concern. I think it resulted in more and better communities than today, where people pull out all the stops to rake in the dough as the primary means of earning money.

> One remark about this though: you always have recourse in court. We often hear the USA is incredibly litigious, but it's not like we'd not (threaten to) bring action against a merchant not acting honestly

It is, however, like we (in the US) wouldn't bring action in court. Ordinary consumers don't want to have to go to court to resolve a dispute with a merchant. Unless you have a substantial amount riding on the outcome, you're just going to lose, even if you win. It costs time and money to go to court. While you may legally have recourse with litigation, in practice, it doesn't usually work that way.

As an adult with a congenital heart defect and white coat hypertension, I can relate. Once, a nurse took my blood pressure and immediately freaked out as I was sitting calmly on the exam table. She took it again in the same arm, then hurriedly took it in each of my other limbs before throwing her hands up.

Often, I would arrive at the cardiology office having made my way through downtown traffic to find a parking space and walk across the pedway. Then I'd find a seat as far away as possible from all the noisy children there to remind me that I should be dead. No wonder my BP is higher than usual. And you're the one freaking out?

I got so used to nurses tossing out every recommendation for measuring BP that I started taking it myself at home before visits just to prove the point. Eventually, as I grew older, my BP rose to a point where it actually needed to be addressed. I am now on medication. But I have yet to find a nurse anywhere that has taken time to follow even one recommendation for properly taking BP.

You're right, of course, those shouldn't be our options. But that's just how it is. If you aren't willing to stop playing, the game will never end.

I love Firefox's picture-in-picture mode for this exact reason. I think there is an extension for Chrome also.

> Crowdfunding, fundraising, and other donation-soliciting activities

Can anyone clarify what this actually means? Stripe offers a discount to nonprofits specifically for taking donations:

https://support.stripe.com/questions/fee-discount-for-nonpro...

How is that not "donation-soliciting activities?"

If you think two different words having different meanings is difficult, wait 'til you hear about contranyms! English is full of words like these, where context is needed to understand the meaning.

If something is fast, it moves quickly or not at all. Cocktails can be garnished, but so can wages. Sales or trade of a product could be sanctioned by one country, but sanctioned by another.

I generally think it is a good thing to communicate clearly. Sometimes that means using words differently to explain something. Other times, that means using words the same way as others. I think this is a case of the latter.

Also, I think the idea of "native speaker" is a bit of a red flag. There are plenty of people that speak English from birth but are utterly unintelligible, and there are plenty of people that speak English as a second language who speak more clearly than those.

It's not even that much of a problem for me on mobile after zooming out just a tad. The green on black is really what makes this page for me.

Ripping a page out of a book you own or slathering it in white out is not illegal, so I don't see why cutting a scene or overlaying a black bar or, for that matter, any other forms of editing would be illegal. The copy is yours. You own it.

Selling a modified copy for a profit? Yes, that would be a violation of copyright. That's the distinction being made.

There are separate flags for communications (like email) and storage (like files).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.3....

Not for email specifically, but there is a flag for encrypted communications and another for signing.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.3....

I believe separate keys for encryption and signing is the default in most implementations.

I stopped after claim 9 on the first patent linked. It had, up until that point, described: peer-to-peer routing, downloading data and programs, running downloaded programs using downloaded data, redirection, and variable length strings.

The next of claims seemed to begin to regurgitate the previous ones with some indiscerbable minute difference.

None of this sounds novel. I read another of their patents where they invented a directory backed DNS service and web browser connections. This company sounds like one massive troll.

> Given that, why would it make sense for a service to assume that publishing a key signals that they should use it by default for a given communication channel?

Why else would one publish a key and make it discoverable, if not that it be used?

This is such a bizarre take to me. If you don't want people using your key to encrypt email to you, why are you uploading your key to a service designed to help people find it to encrypt email to you?

I never thought of making a blog post a man page. That's pretty awesome, actually. I'd be interested to see the code for the underlying conversion, but maybe I'll just try my hand at it myself this weekend.

Btw, in Bash, you can use process substitution to avoid littering your folder with files, if you don't want to save them:

$ man <(curl ...)

> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior, the discussion is about preventing some thing from being sold or existing, whether that be insecure vehicles or Flipper Zeroes.

There are already laws against theft. They apply to vehicles, secure and insecure alike.

A law mandating a minimum level of security, as GP suggests, seems to me to fit the suggestion, that auto manufacturers have a minimum standard to ethically sell a vehicle which buyers would, presumably, expect to have locking mechanisms suitable to prevent theft.

It's exactly how risk works. The primary definition if risk is "possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger," according to The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language.