p49k

That’s not what will happen, because the US is by far the most lucrative market for advertising, and serving ads to users in the US means that they will have to adhere to US laws, even if they’re not physically located there, just as Twitter is forced to censor content according to the laws of every other country where it does business (e.g. censoring Nazi material in Germany)

As I said, they already falsely banned it again, this time for nudity even though there is no nudity. Is that enough to just admit that the system is completely broken?

As he explained, he would have been more than happy to bleep those 3 seconds in the first place if that was the policy. But as he pointed out, the policy only gives more severe examples than what was contained in his video. The point is that there should have been a realistic way for him to know it would break policy.

In this case, the damage is done. He slaved away for months on this video only to have lost thousands of dollars in ad revenue that can’t be recovered.

1. As he explains, YouTube's rules don't actually instruct creators to censor these types of outbursts, and he can site numerous examples of content by more well-known creators that are much more explicit than the 3-second clip.

2. After reversing their decision, Youtube has re-restricted the video because they now claim it contains nudity/sexual content. How does that tie into your argument, exactly?

Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.

Because this viewpoint isn’t consistent with his actions; he has a long history of retaliating against anyone who criticizes him, including attacking journalists and threatening them with lawsuits as well as firing employees who raise issues within his companies.

I thought IPinfo was just sourced from Maxmind, am I wrong? Is there any way to know who are the original sources of info in this space and who are reselling?

When it happens to you and this is the only way you can get access to some urgently-needed account, you'll be thankful HN didn't create a special category to push these down and make them less visible.

The original/first proof of work proposal, Hashcash, was in fact designed to solve email spam. It obviously served as the inspiration for Bitcoin’s proof of work component.

There’s a difference between credit scoring and credit reporting.

Credit scoring refers to the act of reducing the entirety of one’s credit history to a single number using an algorithm.

Few people are opposed to credit histories being available to potential lenders. However many find the scoring system to be unnecessary and flawed. Lenders could just look at the actual credit history to make a decision.

Maybe they corrected it, but for me it says the opposite.

> Notably, VLC Media Player is not backed by a Chinese company. It is developed by VideoLAN, a Paris-based firm.

From the guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

The person's core argument was obviously that "airlines do what they can to keep people safe rather than financially benefiting from criminal activity" which distinguishes Tornado from airlines and web browser developers.

As an aside, it was less important to prevent hijacking before 2001 because the end result of most hijackings before then was that nobody got hurt if pilots complied, so there would be no reason to place a cockpit door. That strategy obviously changed after 9/11.

> In fact, it’s so simple that you might wonder why didn’t Microsoft or thousands of Linux’s open-source developers come up with that?!

Apple didn’t come up with it either: they just ripped the idea off from the Yeti Login that went viral in 2018, likely with no credit or compensation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/dsenneff/status/97907448806628966...

Zipcar transitioned everyone who was on a free plan to a paid plan without their consent and started charging their card on file. Unethical and almost certainly illegal. I’m not surprised.

They directly stated on the beta announcement page from the beginning that they’re doing this, and they basically implied they’re just tacking on words. Not really news.

The headline is misleading. The videos aren’t unwelcome, it’s just that the channel is demonetized. Why should anyone feel they are entitled to earn ad revenue for reuploading public domain police videos to YouTube? It’s not original content, and they’re using someone else’s infrastructure to host.

It wasn’t just a huge scandal for the “ewww” factor but mostly due to the fact that the horse was not part of the traceable supply chain and thus could have come from anywhere, could have contained any number of contaminants/hormones/banned substances, the horses could have been mistreated in violation of ethical standards, etc.

> don't be a customer. And don't be an investor

No one has to accept this false dichotomy. There are far more options. Severely regulate this behavior, force them to break up into smaller companies, declare privacy a right and thus something you can't legally bargain away through accepting a Terms of Service agreement, etc, etc.

Be careful with this in Postgres: using a zero, blank space, empty array or similar as a default value instead of NULL can lead to enormous bloat in terms of disk space. There are distinct advantages of NULL that have to be considered.

Are there any efforts to completely replace the firmware of TVs, much like dd-wrt for routers? I would gladly donate money toward such a project.

That describes livejournal which launched in 1999.

From reading the articles, they are completely separate exploits. The other one is about intercepting Bluetooth traffic at the network level.

This one is about exploiting the fact that unlocking a Tesla with a NFC key enables new keys to be registered to the car without authentication for 130 seconds.

Your comment reminded me of this:

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

The subject of the article is about apps bundling time sensitive notifications that you can’t realistically disable with promotions.

You can turn off most notifications for a calmer life, but when you order an Uber you need to know if it’s arriving or if the driver sent you an important message.

> A system that correctly predicts who is likely to pay back borrowed funds as agreed serves both borrowers and lenders.

Such a system can't be built without being unfairly biased against some people who don't fit a certain mold, and thus it should be illegal.

Most of Europe has a much simpler system: Your ability to obtain credit is based on the past several years of income, with a penalty for instances over the past ~7 years in which you didn't pay back debts. That's it; no predictive modeling or scoring or other nonsense; everyone has an even chance at credit.

This is a false dichotomy. We can have - and should fight for - digital services that don’t siphon our personal info for other purposes.

It’s a direct quote from the 2nd tweet in his thread.

If you force people to manually turn it off every time you start the car (which is what the article states), it’s essentially mandatory. It wears people down to do so and they’ll just give up and accept the feature at some point. It’s an illusion of choice.

In most of Europe it’s not km/l but instead l/100km (number of liters required to drive 100km). It’s IMO a better way to frame consumption of resources.

I would also remove the language that implies your product is better because it's built in the Netherlands rather than Poland - it seems quite bigoted. It's not directly stated, but literally every other "fact" about your product versus the other is about how yours is better, so it comes off as if that statement follows the rest.

There are also some claims that seem dangerous such as "Choose Handsontable and you're guaranteed to slow down your web app and upset your users" - even without being a lawyer, you could just take a moment to think of how often you see claims like this made about competitors by large companies (never) and it should be clear that there's probably a good reason why.

> I don't understand this sentiment. Why would it matter whether the UX is different between browsers for a date or colour input?

It’s not just a question of consistency: some of HTML UI elements are still in pre-alpha stage in modern browsers, almost completely broken, despite being part of the standard for many years. It’s a joke.

For an example, check out the RANGE element; you will find no shortage of articles complaining about how ridiculously broken and unusable it is.