shkkmo

> that won't pass environmental review

In what way do walkable neighborhoods not pass environmental review?

> but if you're against the disenfranchisement of people.

Nobody is taking away their right to vote, so it isn't "disenfranchising" someone to put in a second icecream shop in their neighborhood when they only wanted one.

> San Francisco, local neighbourhoods discussed whether or not two ice-cream stores in the neighbourhood were too many ice-cream stores

SF seems to have a public feedback and planning problem that dysfunctionally favors nimbyism over regional needs and they end up shooting themselves in the foot with it over and over.

> You can barely set up a taco truck here.

I see taco trucks everywhere and there are dozens of food carts within a mile of me.

This sounds more like issue that is specific to your area and local government.

> Or people learning to cook instead of being lazy slobs.

There are many reasons people eat out beside lack of cooking knowledge or desire to be social. You seem like you value feeling superior to these people. Perhaps you can find a way to value yourself without looking down on everyone who makes different choices?

> Plus it is cheaper, faster, healthier and tastier than eating out.

You can get some of those 4 but in my experience, getting all 4 at the same time doesn't happen often.

Worker Owned != Anarchist

This isn't a debate about whether to offer a trial period or how of one to offer. This is a debate about forcing people to give you payment info for a free trial.

Requiring a credit card for a free trial is a technique to trick people into paying for a subscription when they normally wouldn't have chosen do do so after the trial period.

Not taking VC funding doesn't make this kind of dark pattern any less scummy. Fundementally you are trading some voluntary customers (people who don't like these tactics) or involuntary customers (distracted, busy or lazy people who forget to cancel.) When I see a company that does this, it tells me that they care about extracting value from the market than providing value to customers.

Laundering the proceeds from a black market transaction doesn't make the black market transaction not a black market transaction.

This attack measures the time needed to draw each pixel which varies due to graphical data compression. It is based on the "GPU.zip" vulnerability which was shown to affect most modern GPUs, including from Apple.

The amount of bitcoin siezed here is about 30% of the Cambodia GDP...

> Imagine if instead we as a society could put it towards better education, healthcare, public transportation

The amount of money we already spend on thos problems absolutely dwarfs the amount of money that SpaceX has raised. Spending a fraction of a percent more on any of those things isn't going to move the needle much.

On the flip side, space access is one of those great economic accelerators and making that access dramatically more affordable will open up new realms of possibility.

> Would that be a good hammer?

They're called rubber mallets and they are useful in a number of situations where you want to

> I would hope a malicious app I willingly installed will be able to behave maliciously.

You should be able to install an app that has continuous access to your screen but that doesn't mean that continuous access to your screen is something you should have to grant to every piece of software that runs on your computer.

How are you sure? This isn't abusing some poorly secured screenshot API, this is a timing attack on the GPU rendering process and impacts a wide range of GPUs.

Looks like this is just misinterpretation of poor public communication by the BLM.

> UPDATE: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management responded to 8 News Now on Friday afternoon to clarify the meaning of a “canceled” notice on the Esmeralda Seven Solar Project. A decision to combine the environmental reviews for the seven projects is being changed to give each project the option of submitting their proposal separately. The BLM’s statement: “During routine discussions prior to the lapse in appropriations, the proponents and BLM agreed to change their approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada. Instead of pursuing a programmatic level environmental analysis, the applicants will now have the option to submit individual project proposals to the BLM to more effectively analyze potential impacts.”

> The “Cancelled – Cancelled” notice on BLM’s NEPA website applies only to the environmental review stage. The entire project has not been canceled.

https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/massive-esmeralda-s...

> we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

Since these are open source apps, couldn't f-droid maintain their own fork of each app with a different application identifier?

It would give Google the ability to shutdown F-Droid at will by baning their account and thus far more power to control what F-Droid publishes and how it operates. However, it seems like anyone could fork an open source app and use their own account and setup their own unique identifier for their fork.

No question this increases Google's power but it doesn't seem like it technically makes it impossible to operate a store like F-Droid.

> Bullshit

You can disbelieve my honest report that you are not explaining your position well, but you seem to be confusing me with a differ commentor.

> If someone has enough money that wasting it on gambling is a problem, then they clearly had no business giving up hope because "the system" doesn't have the ability to make their lives better. The system that makes their lives better is the money they just wasted, but invested in something productive.

This seems to be pretty clearly saying that you think poor people only gamble with money they don't need and if they didn't gamble they would be able to stop being poor by investing that money. That seems a pretty clear statement that you think that poor people who gamble wouldn't be poor if they didn't irrationally gamble money that they should have invested in their future.

You say you have a "better grasp" of your opinion. I say you don't have a good enough grasp of it to present it in an understandable way since this "misinterpretation" of your view seems to match pretty well with what you've actually said.

> Anyhow, Ruby Central managed the GitHub repo

This is incorrect. The GitHub repository was managed by the maintainers, only some of whom were Ruby Central employees. RubyCentral decided to break the agreement under which those maintainers worked and take control of the repository.

Incorrect.

Ruby Central hosts the RubyGems service, not the RubyGems repository. Ruby Central employs some RubyGems maintainers but does not own the repository. Ruby Central decided to make their employees who are maintainers take over the repository against the wishes of the other maintainers so they could remove some of the maintainers from the project.

> You have the choice of assuming the worst in everyone, or not.

I'm not assuming the worst...that would be assuming he intends to find a way to continue managing an online gang from jail...

> the superficial exploitation of people

It wasn't superficial. He had a huge negative impact on a lot of everyday people and profited from it enormously.

> I'm just hoping for the best and recognizing that possibility seems to still exist for him.

I also hope he turns his life around and do believe there is a chance, but statements like the one quoted don't give me much hope. He pays lip service to saying what ge did was wrong and calls the community horrible, but he still wants to be friends with all the people with whom he became friends by engaging in criminal conspiracy with them.

The judge decided to throw the book at him and I think the judge was probably right. Maybe the extra years will give him time to understand the damage he caused.

That seems like a lot of credit to give someone whose main criminal skill was being articulate and talking people into things.

> Something that drives me nuts is someone writing on a code review "you may want to consider using the X data struct here" and meaning "I will not merge this code until you use X"

The former language is appropriate when there is a specific problem to be solved and X seems to be a good solution. This language doesn't rule out other approaches that also solve the problem. (It should probably be accompanied by a good description of the problem.)

Saying the latter would be fairly rude since it implies that you think an ultimatum was required to get compliance. I'd instead phrase it as "X data struct should be used here." It is still clear about the correct way of doing things and carries less baggage.

> So all you will accomplish is increasing human misery of trafficked slaves or their loved ones, while accomplishing nothing besides feeling a sense of retribution.

You seem to be asserting that we should let them scam someone else. If you think that funding the scammers to protect their vicitm workers is moral then you should do it yourself rather than pawning the costs off on someone less aware who might unintentionally feed the scammers money they can't afford to lose.

You can write javascript without using npm...

> the scam will remain as this level is rather cheap.

The less efficient you can make the process, the less you make it attractive to put resources into scaling it. Focus on making them generate the types of proof that aren't as easy to fabricate or at least give them as little information about why their initial approach failed as possible by playing along for a while after you catch on so they can't figure out how they got caught.

> The kind of people that run criminal organisations generally don’t give credit for trying. It’s strictly numbers.

Hence my argument that wasting the scammers' resources is the moral choice. If you help the bosses identify bad prospects (even if just yourself), then you make the activity more profitable and incentivize it.

> If you engage at all, you risk worsening their situation by wasting their time, while if you do engage you might be saving someone else at their expense….

I don't understand what you are arguing for here? That they need to be allowed to scam someone else to avoid worsening their situation?

I'd say wasting their time is the best solution. It avoids giving the bosses info on what approaches works with who and helps makes runnning these sorts of operations uneconomical.

> But there are no chargebacks here, since we don’t take a card upfront and we don’t bill in a hidden way. In the worst case, if you missed or didn’t read that detail, you can simply decline and not subscribe after the trial.

This is a dark pattern. You should display the actual minimum monthly charge in text that is at least as large as the price per user.

No, the worst case is the customer gets the $10 price into their head and then doesn't see the actual monthly charge amount when they subscribe. You are now charging the customer 5x what they expected to pay.

> How would this be tooled? A chargeback, a deep link to the cancel page, an API connection between bank and subscription?

I'd be happy to just have the ability to easily ask the credit card company block further payments with no actual notification to the business besides that the monthly charges stop going through. If you want to be fancy about it, creat a custom industry standard declination reason for that use case.

Perhaps this is a question you should be asking yourself. Is your cancellation system working? There was a billing session created the day after the initial charge, are you sure there wasn't an attempt to cancel the that the system failed to register and log due to an error? If I try to cancel and it doesn't work, I'm not gonna waste time trying to figure out how to work around it or filing a bug report. I'm gonna go straight to the charge back.

Is your cancellation mechanism consumer friendly? You don't do proration when people cancel and say you only "meet them halfway" when they go through the effort of requesting a refund in response to this user hostile policy.

There are a lot of very user unfriendly policies and implementations. Sometimes companies that legitimately try to do the right thing get caught in the blowback, but more commonly, companies aren't as user friendly as they like to pretend and have adopted at least some of the pervasive dark patterns.

> make a machine that could create full exact copies of books without ever training on or copying those books, that would still be infringement.

No it wouldn't. Making the machine is not making a copy of the book. Using the machine to make a copy of the book would be infringment because...you would be making a copy of the book.

> We have a model for what intelligence is - what humans do.

At what point does a human become intelligent? Is a 12 cell embryon intelligent? Is a newborn intelligent? Is a 1 year old intelligent?

> It's the logically night is day argument - just because we can't point to a clear cut off point

Um...what? There may be more than one of them, but precise definitions exist for the transitions between day and night. I think that is a very poor analogy to intelligence.

There are not just degrees of intelligence but different kinds. It is easier for us to understand and evaluate intelligence that is more similar ours and it becomes increasingly harder the more alien it becomes.

Given that, I don't see how you could reject that assertion that LLMs have some kind of intelligence.

Asking