otrahuevada

Sorry for being this direct, I know it can be viewed as impolite but please bear with me for a second.

If you want curious conversations to occur, then please consider forcing downvotes to prompt a conversation by having to respond instead of perpetuating a situation where jingoism runs rampant and simple innocuous expressions of actual genuine curiosity get taken down for no real reason other than said jingoism then.

What you get otherwise is merely the appearance of a conversation, based around the 4 or so responses the invisible minority that as far as anyone knows astroturfed itself into your good graces can tolerate. This, coincidentally, is pretty much what you see on most topics here that are not strictly about some tech or another.

Once upon a time I became convinced I wanted to create the first 100% virtual bank of my country.

Not having the faintest idea of how to do such a thing I set out to at least collect a roadmap of the paperwork needed to do that, so I could glean some knowledge in the process.

Ended up consulting with a lawyer and gathering a grand total of 1700 distinct bits of paperwork I needed to fill and complete as a random person. Every one of those things would have to be accompanied by documentation, most of which had to be presented in person at least back then. Would have taken me about 5 years if I managed to file a paper a day every day. To this day I still have no idea how on earth do banks just pop up one day.

No font in Google fonts does, for instance. At least from their own little demonstrator. There is https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-emoji Noto Emoji which can render the flags but you need to build it yourself

Different legal systems codify different mores differently.

In Argentina and Chile, mapuche people to this day continue to legally challenge the ownership of land that they claim is theirs even after hundreds of years of having lost it to the genocide of their people -and dozens of others- as part of the creation of our nations.

In Uruguay, where I now live, this is very rarely still the case, mostly because the people who would have a right to challenge those lands ownership were very thoroughly murdered and their descendents have long been stripped of that right.

We're just not ok with brutalizing people as a business strategy. Like I said, it's a cultural thing.

Oh my. I just looked, and it turns out in the US there is apparently no such thing as voiding a sale due to it being forced, only 'fraud' understood as misrepresenting the value of the property or the origins of the money haha

So, here's the issue. In other countries, especially over here in South America, this kinds of transactions are heavily frowned upon, and criminal acts resulting in a sale are regularly cited as reasons for voiding some sale or another. This is a bit of a worldview issue, we're not used to thinking about inflicting misery on others as a legit business strategy.

According to the article the State discovered, way late, that the kind of ties he had with China were not of the kind they assumed guilt of and heavily publicized when they went to destroy his professional life, but instead of the kind people have when they are born elsewhere.

When they did find out about this, they instead tried to make him admit to some other non criminal kind of ties to justify their ruining of his life, and when that failed they simply bailed out.

It's heartbreaking.

They aren't Automatically Awesome Tools Of Civility either.

An entire world war was fought as a direct consequence of one said peace treaty. Nazis wouldn't have been able to gather that much support if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't been specifically designed to aggravate the germans.

If torturing you into selling your assets makes the transaction worth questioning, why would we not question it when whole countries do this to each other?

Unless they have like a country-wide e-mail address or some kind of HN-exclusive PA system, I don't think this figure of speech really means much other than a childish retort that does not really further dialogue.

The validity of treaties signed under duress on the other hand I think really deserves some questioning.

A good compromise for this kinds of things is usually dual licensing:

    - If you're big enough to make real money and you need my attention then pay me this much please 
    - If you're some rando with a toy project, then we have a github issue tracker
 

A project this size and age should always have a lawyer at hand just in case, and they should be able to walk the maintainers through the process of dual-licensing everything.

One thing I've always wondered is, who cleans this things? Is normal, run of the mill cleaning personnel expected to be careful enough to not accidentally toss something out alignment, or is there some kind of Nuclear Plant Grade Cleaning industry I never heard about?

If there's one scenario where I'd dread autocomplete-based/chorded typing is when coding or writing on a terminal. My coding usually comes _after_ some consideration about I want to write, and having to tack an additional "let's proofread what the software thought was close enough" step on top of that would make it seriously annoying. I already have an expansion plugin on my editor that allows me to insert potentially massive amounts of boilerplate for me if I happen to need to, and I already trust it.

According to https://copyrightalliance.org/are-recipes-cookbooks-protecte...:

    Recipes can be protected under copyright law if they are accompanied by “substantial literary expression.” This expression can be an explanation or detailed directions, which is likely why food and recipe bloggers often share stories and personal anecdotes alongside a recipe’s ingredients.

So besides SEO, there's this thing where the recipe itself is basically defenseless against someone stealing it and calling it theirs but the sum of the fluff around it plus the recipe on the other hand can be copyrighted and enjoys all the protections afforded to these kinds of things. So, if say, Jamie Oliver likes your recipe and puts it in a book passing it as his, you can now legally tell him to stop doing that because of said fluff.

According to this people: https://www.unep.org/thinkeatsave/get-informed/worldwide-foo... about a third of the food produced is thrown away along with half the water used to produce it.

Strikes me as an obviously improvable thing, as long as we're as a species capable of reining in the market forces at play.

But then again, we as a community don't seem to able to stop a couple hundred maladaptive nerds from using downvotes as a "me no likey" button, so there's that.

Unfortunately, if we can't agree on what words mean, I can't justify continuing to waste time in this discussion.

Cheerio!

> The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative

And yet here you are, claiming that "pirating" something is somehow bad.

Look, I think our disagreement comes down to definitions. So, let's clarify some things.

For me,

    "A thing" is an entity that is capable of being described as "being". For instance, your phone, a bottle, a trip, a word, love, inertia.

    "Good" is a desirable quality of "A thing" that by being attached to it adds to its value. 

    "Bad" on the other hand is an undesirable quality of "A thing", which detracts from it. 
    
    "Control" is the ability to do with a thing whatever I want,

    "Selling" "A thing" is relinquishing "Control" over it for money, 
    
    "Buying" "A thing" is receiving "Control" of a thing in exchange of money

    "Renting" "A thing" on the other hand is relinquishing "some" control of that thing for some time in exchange of money.
    
    "Promising" something is agreeing to do that thing; doing the thing that was agreed upon is generally considered "Good".

    "Cheating" is "Promising" "A thing" and then doing a different one, which is "Bad"
    
    "Copying" "A thing" is creating "A thing" that is fundamentally interchangeable for "Another Thing"

Given this definitions, it naturally arises that Cheating people into thinking they Bought Things when you only Rented those Things to them is Bad. Which is the entirety of my point.

For you on the other hand all of those terms ostensibly appear to mean "whatever lets me sleep at night" and it seems that this gap is bothering you a lot.

I also see you seem to be conflating your opinion on things with their legality and their moral qualities, which are three entirely disconnected things. It is legal in some countries to kill perceived deviants in a kind of ritual show. Would you call that good? Does that being "legal" make it any better?

> Easily duplicable cultural products? You’re suggesting that you should be able to take something someone else made because it’s easy to do?

No, I'm not. What's more, that's an easily disprovable lie: My duplicating of a file does not somehow delete the original. My downloading of this page hasn't done anything to your post.

> Movies often costs tens to hundreds of millions to produce, and they only take on that level of risk because of the financial return of people who pay to watch them.

Financial return that, according to themselves, is at best terrible? And that you, too, keep mentioning, despite loudly proclaiming they are of noone's interest?

> Do you have a job? Do you work for a company that makes money? Would you be okay with the product you’re working on being taken for free by people who insist they shouldn’t have to pay for it?

My job does not rely on handing copies of our product's binaries to people if they pinky promise they'll only use it in a way we approve of though. And if we, too rented garbled copies of it with time-limited access to the ungarbling machinery, we probably should disclose that beforehand so that prospective customers don't end up feeling like they've been defrauded.

> you’re also ignoring all smaller businesses that aren’t making enormous profits but can’t afford to give away their content for free

I'm not asking anyone to give anything away for free. And in any case the fact that the gatekeeping-culture-industrial-complex also exploits other smaller creators could easily also be considered problematic in and by itself.

> The amount of money someone makes is not any of your business

Oh but it is, specifically when they make it into a battle cry to invade my privacy and impede my agency in a deeply dumb search of unapproved copies of whatever they feel like claiming to own.

At least according to their own accounting, movies lose otherwise hilarious amounts of money all the time and they seem to still exist somehow.

"Piracy", which in reality is probably better called "online jaywalking" as it, too, is a made up faux-pas created so as to allow a couple soulless drones to make more money, hasn't to date represented an obstacle to content creation, they still happily churn products all the time, so I don't see any reason to think it will become an existential threat to the studio suits any time soon.

And maybe it should. Which is kind of core to the whole debate; is it actually good to anyone in any way to have a business based around forbidding free access to easily duplicable cultural products? Should such a thing even be allowed to thrive?

Your use of scare quotes on plain self-evident terms kinda makes me think this is going to be entirely pointless, but here goes nothing.

Do you understand that your being more or less content with the results of a deal does not have a bearing on how good, or decent, or moral, the system overarching that deal is?

Tons of people seem more or less into Nestlé products despite their long track record of profiting from slavery, do you believe that being the case makes agricultural slavery a good thing?

On your last statement, how exactly do you think not paying for a thing you wouldn't pay for anyway prevents that thing from existing? Like, if I torrent "Superheroes in Body Gloves 27" instead of, you know, ignoring it, then a time travelling ghost will materialize in the set and kidnap the directors? Or how would that work

The purpose of DRM is ultimately asserting the will of a couple corporate ghouls over your use of the thing they basically cheated you into renting.

Which wouldn't even be a thing if intellectual property rights, which are at the core of the whole debate, were untransferable and only endured for the lifetime of the creator.

If anyone were able to lobby those simple, clear changes into law, the effects of that would probably be Earth-altering.

The wording on the main driver of the experiment, their especially bad emails, leads website operators to think there is a problem where there is none. This, on top of the research being entirely devoid of consent between the human parties involved, makes it a _very_ bad study, one that could well cause both the university and the research team to lose money if some of the 'subject' parties actually had to go get a lawyer to have a look at their shoddy emails.

In better studies what is supposed to happen is, you propose taking part in the experiment, you get a signed agreement of some sort, and only then actually start experimenting. What happened here is more like some kind of youtube prank than a useful information gathering procedure.

In some countries, government support networks grow out of christian charity schemes where a powerful person will discretionarily share a tiny portion of their time and wealth with the destitute of their choosing and gets to be enthusiastically cheered on for this sacrifice.

This often does not translate well to actual country-scale structural problems. Especially if in some of those countries' individuals also happen to consider paying taxes as a way in to government-scale decision making.

This is kinda sorta equivalent to "from Apache HTTP Server to Phoenix Framework" though.

Like, yes of course an actual RAD framework has more things built into it than a server runtime. That's kind of why they exist.

Your programming environment should more or less reflect your requirements, strengths, and priorities, and starting with plain Node makes sense for a development style that OP just doesn't seem to want to follow, so he's spending a ton of time building 'boilerplate' to try and shim his process into his tools when the tools should be the ones doing the work for him.

Like, all that stuff about CRUD and auth. Just use Prisma and Passport?. No need to twist yourself into a knot building the same abstractions over and over by hand, the things exist and are there.

It does not need /negative matter/ or energy, though.

What is needed, in the original, non-scammer-friendly version by Alcubierre is /something/ that can push spacetime in the opposite direction that mass and energy do.

At least the original Alcubierre solution, he basically lays out the mechanism and says, paraphrasing: "hey, the numbers do work out. We just need something that doesn't make sense, or something that makes /the thing/ happen"

    We see then that, just as it happens with wormholes, one needs exotic matter to travel faster than the speed of light. 

    However, even if one believes that exotic matter is forbidden classically, it is well known that quantum field theory permits the existence ofregions with negative 
    energy densities in some special circumstances (as, for example, inthe Casimir effect [4]). 

    The need of exotic matter therefore doesn’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of using a spacetime distortion like the one described above for hyper-fast 
    interstellar travel.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013.pdf

The excitement here is partly due to the fact that this is both a trekkie thing and one that was previously not even supposed to numerically make sense.

It's likely this "not requiring any specific fringe-physics thing" is what is causing the idea to catch on and continue to be ellaborated, because having specificed this mechanics well enough, then maybe and only maybe it might be possible to cause at least an analogue of it to exist and that'd be awesome.

I like this as a placeholder look and feel? Looks fairly pretty, lets me focus on building the thing, and is easy to throw away when actual themeing takes place later.

I myself enjoy reading papers.

At least after I transfer them to a single column, 14/16pt tall font with real headers, that is.

The graphic format itself is dated and annoying, yes, but I find the expositional tone and immediately searchable references pretty cool.

hey I hadn't thought of that before! Pretty cool. I wonder if I can run a DHT on top of that.

This link here https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/MSTW.pdf seems to provide a little bit more info on how they manage to keep the corrosion within acceptable parameters.

It involves the addition of an unnamed chemical compound functioning as a reducing anode straight into the fuel, which is a fairly awesome thing I wasn't aware was possible.

Morels grow under a whole host of trees, some of them of very high commercial value, so I wouldn't bet on that.

What's more, one simple way of getting a bunch of morels to grow on a specific patch of land turns out to be setting it on fire, so growing them on a basement would even probably end up being a net positive.

Google famously sucks at customer service, mostly because they've figured that they'd have to pay a moderation team more money than whatever they'll lose from the few and far between problem cases there might be.

There is no fixing that without massive corporate reorganization, which won't be voluntary, and thus will take 10x the time with worse results. At this point this is just the Google way to do things, and making smaller fry follow this rules will probably only end up making Google bigger.

The one real way out there might be is making one-click self hosting viable again.

Facebook's unique brand of algorithmic bias is probably the one thing they will end up being remembered for once they manage to sunset themselves. Even Google will recommend some odd, interesting things from time to time to find out if your bubble is in need of expanding, while FB for whatever reason just can´t and defaults to showing you the most handsomely paid for, boring spam available.

Here in Uruguay, the most useful feature I found in there and the main reason why I kept coming back to it was Events, and lately they seem to have dropped the ball on that too, only recommending the most anodine, generic things possible.

Friends with bands and tiny galleries have complained that their events just don't get that much people in anymore. The boringest, most astroturfed events just get to eat their lunch instead, and as a consequence even that is getting unusable this days.

-minor side rant- Also, Instagram has been Facebook For Teens for a while already, hence actual teens escaping to places like tiktok and wattpad. Whatever algorithmic choices FB is making, they don't seem to be working that well on them.