wolfgke

> I've believed since college that math is the worst taught of all academic subjects. I never had a math professor that engaged the class, and practical applications were never mentioned.

Nearly all math textbooks and lectures mention practical applications. The problem rather seems to be that you have/had a different understanding of "practical" than your math professor.

A quite similar game in Steam:

MHRD

https://store.steampowered.com/app/576030/MHRD/

Make exams that are harder to cheat. For example:

- oral exams via video call

- written exams where students are distributed over a larger area (e.g. the university rents a warehouse for the examination time) so that the COVID-19 spreading risk is nevertheless kept very small.

> (but is still available in 16-bit (“real mode”) and 32-bit (“protected mode”) for compatibility).

There exists both 16 bit protected mode (available since the 80286) and 32 bit protected mode (available since the 80386).

Indeed - but then the person asking should better look in the systems/browser settings; this has nothing to do with the website.

> A big "Yes" to proportional scroll bars. I didn't have an Amiga, but rather an ST. The ST also had proportional scroll bars and for years, I could not understand why the major platforms (Windows, MacOS) did not. It was a pet peeve that really bothered me when I would sit down to use someone's Mac or PC of the time.

Windows has proportional scrollbars: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20030731-00/?p=43...

> Can you add an indicator so that people will know to scroll down for rules and stuff.

It's called a "scrollbar" and shown in the browser.

> I do think one core aspect of the practice of mathematics has been in increasing human understanding of it, not merely compute things with symbols.

The road towards better (in the sense that they can be "more trusted") computer-checked proofs of the four-color theorem has also lead to a better (human) understanding of the four-color theorem.

> Hobby Lobby refused to pay for any health insurance plan that covered contraception because they believed them to be abortifacients and contrary to the christian values of the corporation.

This is rather an argument why not the employer, but the employee should pay for the health coverage. As they say in Germany:

"Wer zahlt, schafft an."

("who pays, commands", where the verb "anschaffen" (which I translate with "command" here) has the undertone of "giving sexual orders to a prostitute that she has to follow")

> Straight couples can get married without any plans to have a child. Why is is different for gay couples?

This is rather an argument for a change in taxation laws instead of gay marriage.

There is a talk by Jonathan Blow about this topic:

Preventing the Collapse of Civilization / Jonathan Blow (Thekla, Inc)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko

> A pitfall of this mentality, at least in my experience, is that people I hurt are usually much better judges of whether I hurt them than I am.

But these people are very biased judges.

> This is not the usual "Google kills product", it's the type of thing that HN loves to say they would be happy to pay for ("Just give me something that does A B C and doesn't show me ads and I would be happy to pay for it!!!", well I guess until you are actually asked to pay for it).

Google still collects data.

"Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses:

- Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source]

- Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source]

- Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source]

So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS.

Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source".

In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this:

"However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."

As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).

It is often not clear what is a bug and what is "unexpected/surprising (but 'correct') behavior". Also, many bug fixes of authors that don't have a good understanding of the code cause lots of additional regressions or don't fit the original architecture of the software well.

The source code has to be provided. From this, one can easily generate a diff. The only thing that such a clause will do is having to inform the original maintainer of this.

But I don't think that such a clause is a good idea: very often these internal modifications are not of the required quality. Also, I can easily imagine that some projects might drown in low-quality upstream pushes.

Opportunity cost.

Here, two cartoons of SMBC on this concept:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-12-29

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-04-20

Indeed it has. But the DMCA takeout request nevertheless shows that the legality of the youtube-dl itself is not clear.

Is is good for name recognition if you contribute to software of somewhat dubious legal status such as youtube-dl?

> Wait, that's just Git with extra steps

But the extra steps are not completely trivial to do right if strong anonymity has to be ensured.

Of course Microsoft (the company behind Github) will not give up respecting DMCA and copyright infringement.

The question rather is: how much will developers continue to respect Microsoft?

If developers are afraid, they will be tempted to program a solution for censorship-resistant hosting of open source software that additionally allows to contribute anonymously (not just pseudonymously).

In my youth, I was inspired by different systems than very closed workstations.

Gifted people can be (and often are) introverts.

Otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your statement.

This will probably not be a very open system. In this sense: no, it won't restore my faith.

> Also back in the day, people who liked Computers were likely to become outcasts in society. They were not the cool kids.

That is what I liked about computers.

GPG signature only ensures that the package was signed by the owner of the key. It does not by itself ensure that the owner of the key is who he claims to be.

> Legality is not an option. It is a necessity, by definition.

Publishing the software anonymously on hidden servers (say, Tor onion Services) is not an option. It is a necessity, by definition, because the legal system will f*k you up.

A question to physicists:

These three quark colors and the leptops are the four vertices of one of the two tetrahedra of the 3d model at the end of the article.

All three colors of quarks come with 3 generations and 2 different charges (+2/3, -1/3).

On the other hand, for the right-handed leptons, which also come in 3 generations (electron, muon, tau), this is not the case: they all have a charge of -1.

What is the reason for this difference?