This is deeply relevant to anyone who ever found themselves watching King of Kong and devouring an alarming amount of popcorn in the gripping drama that followed.
Strip guests spend something like $1k per day on average, counting food, room and entertainment. Who the fuck is burning $1k a day and wants to take mass transit?
Twitter's fallacy here -- and the one which powerful forces are trying to foist upon other big names -- is that you can have a global communication platform with one set of rules. There is no one set of rules that refers to all speech. There is no way to measure "hate" fairly. Twitter has painted themselves into a corner: they will forever be too strict, or too lenient, often being loudly accused of both at the same time.
Amazon does everything else now, maybe they can start doing on-demand cardboard pickups for Prime customers. Or, they could collect recyclables in general and assign a certain day of the week to send a truck by your house to collect them from a bin placed at your curb. This kind of zero-click technology is incredibly innovative, and clearly warrants a patent.
Maybe there's an emulator for it and maybe there's not, but I was never expecting to play the Xbox games on my Linux box, any more than I expect my phone apps to run on it. But there's no movie, TV show or music album for instance that was released, DRMed and unpiratable, unless that media was so spectacularly unpopular that no one wanted to pirate it in the first place.
You know, the-man-will-get-you FUD used to worry me, but now it doesn't. They tried it, and it was way too expensive. So instead they did what we said they ought to do all along: release their stuff on a platform like Netflix, which is easier to use than piracy. And lo, I pay for Netflix! But I'm likely to cancel my subscription because of barriers introduced by DRM.
DRM does not work. If you doubt this, name for me one piece of copyrighted material HDCP is intended protect that is not already available for piracy online. This cannot be done, therefore, anything I could watch if HDCP is supported, I can already watch without it. So if there's no value-add for the user, and no value-add for the media companies, and it contradicts the open nature which has made Linux so successful in the first place, why should it be included?
I'd phrase it more like, Thiel paid for people to sue them for their repeated wrong-doings, until one day Gawker finally said "WHAT, YOU THINK YOU CAN HURT US? YOU CAN'T HURT US IF WE KILL OURSELVES FIRST" and then they proceeded to publicly antagonize the judge, violate court orders, knowingly misrepresent their finances to the court and testify under oath that they'd publish child porn. And that's just the highlight reel.
It's all well and good to make another site, but let's be honest: reddit does about as good a job as anyone is going to do with a centralized discussion service. The only possible way to improve it is to create a decentralized alternative.
EFF has a pretty good open letter explaining their reasoning. In short: DRM is a fool's errand. It doesn't work. Everything on Netflix, Spotify, Amazon or anywhere else can be pirated despite the DRM. At no point as any DRM ever resolved any of these copyright infringement issues, and it never will, because the person you're trying to guard the secret from is the person who you're trying to reveal the secret to. It's a mathematical non-starter. Meanwhile, it does succeed in closing off devices, and criminalizing tinkerers who wish to repurpose the devices they've purchased for reasons which have nothing at all to do with piracy.
Prior to this, the status code registry officially listed for 418 has been "unassigned." This meant that there was objectively a gap between what IETF considered to be standard, and what actual widely-deployed software considered to be standard. Something needed to change. I guess this guy just wanted to make it consistent, and for one reason or another decided to start by putting the objective technical needs above our own human desire for fun.
I think a lot of us have wondered, how will the next generation of innovators possibly upset titans like Google? They have unthinkable amounts of money and resources, along with an impressive portfolio of talent, patents and subsidiaries. The answer is that they will voluntarily commit suicide by eroding all trust in their brand, and driving off their most productive people in favor of shit-stirrers, and stifling the creativity and independence of employees who might be able to invent the next big thing -- or avoid the next big disaster.
Good work, Google. Thanks for clearing the way for the next batch.
I remember when everyone hated him for not actually knowing anything and writing heavily-slanted pieces on whatever bullshit stories people told him that flattered his politics. Little did we know then that the future of blogging was a world of Jon Katzes.
The true test of any language is whether it can be self-descriptive, so obviously it should have been written in itself. Also, it doesn't make use of any of the modern breakthroughs in semantic design theory, like functional re-isms, kwanzaa clauses or multilevel reflexisms. You know what? I'll just implement my own and show everyone how it ought to work.
Huh? I think if you read that program and don't know that `C++ > C` == false, you don't know how the post-increment operator works and you're not much of a C programmer.
In this case, a user tested Twitter's consistency by reporting two posts from two different accounts. The first said, "I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you." The second post changed two words: "I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you."
Twitter "carefully reviewed" the anti-white post, and determined that it did not violate their rules. The anti-black was found to be a rule violation, and the account was suspended. Why should I not take that to be a clear example of bias?
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and 2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
I don't believe that's true at all. The Y2K bug was an example of a problem that was foreseeable in the requirements of the program. Scientists in 1980 actually predicted that the year 2000 might happen in as little as 20 years.
But if I have a problem where the upper bound on the number of calls to my recursive function that is much lower than the very large number of calls it would take to actually run out the stack, then there's no point in worrying about a stack overflow that is simply never going to happen. I'm not gonna buy 50 pounds of steak for a dinner party where I only invited 8 people.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "you run out of stack pretty quickly." You run out of space in an 8-bit int "pretty quickly," but I still use those when the situation calls for it and I know I'm never going to need that much range. I don't get to use recursion often, but when I do, it improves readability and elegance. In most cases, I value those more than execution time or a restriction on domain that I was never going to exceed in the first place.
Obviously, data loss is embarrassing. I think we all appreciate the importance of not only having multiple backups, but testing to ensure that your backups work, and are sufficient to fully restore operations. GitLab is just the latest in a long tradition of sites and services that have found themselves facing the consequences of not regularly testing their recovery plans.
But I do respect their response. They quickly recognized what had happened, and they diagnosed what went wrong with their backups. They did not try to use PR-speak to conceal their mistake -- they publicly copped to it, in plain industry-standard language that their users would understand, and even offered a livestream of their team resolving the issue. I think this has been a masterclass in how to recover from a blunder. I bet you that this is not a mistake GitLab will be repeating anytime soon.
Also, I think it's very fortunate that they're in the git repo business, and presumably users who had data that was affected by the loss still have a copy in their own local repos. Thank god for distributed SCM.
Slashdot Mirror
> You can't argue from ignorance that the people who do have knowledge are intellectually dishonest
You claim knowledge but haven't demonstrated it, so why should anyone treat you as if you possess it? Citation or GTFO.
This is deeply relevant to anyone who ever found themselves watching King of Kong and devouring an alarming amount of popcorn in the gripping drama that followed.
Strip guests spend something like $1k per day on average, counting food, room and entertainment. Who the fuck is burning $1k a day and wants to take mass transit?
Twitter's fallacy here -- and the one which powerful forces are trying to foist upon other big names -- is that you can have a global communication platform with one set of rules. There is no one set of rules that refers to all speech. There is no way to measure "hate" fairly. Twitter has painted themselves into a corner: they will forever be too strict, or too lenient, often being loudly accused of both at the same time.
Amazon does everything else now, maybe they can start doing on-demand cardboard pickups for Prime customers. Or, they could collect recyclables in general and assign a certain day of the week to send a truck by your house to collect them from a bin placed at your curb. This kind of zero-click technology is incredibly innovative, and clearly warrants a patent.
Maybe there's an emulator for it and maybe there's not, but I was never expecting to play the Xbox games on my Linux box, any more than I expect my phone apps to run on it. But there's no movie, TV show or music album for instance that was released, DRMed and unpiratable, unless that media was so spectacularly unpopular that no one wanted to pirate it in the first place.
You know, the-man-will-get-you FUD used to worry me, but now it doesn't. They tried it, and it was way too expensive. So instead they did what we said they ought to do all along: release their stuff on a platform like Netflix, which is easier to use than piracy. And lo, I pay for Netflix! But I'm likely to cancel my subscription because of barriers introduced by DRM.
DRM does not work. If you doubt this, name for me one piece of copyrighted material HDCP is intended protect that is not already available for piracy online. This cannot be done, therefore, anything I could watch if HDCP is supported, I can already watch without it. So if there's no value-add for the user, and no value-add for the media companies, and it contradicts the open nature which has made Linux so successful in the first place, why should it be included?
Oh, my disk drive left me
Optical I lack,
when it comes to networks, well
I ain't got jack!
I got the Retina blues...
but I get good reviews.
I'd phrase it more like, Thiel paid for people to sue them for their repeated wrong-doings, until one day Gawker finally said "WHAT, YOU THINK YOU CAN HURT US? YOU CAN'T HURT US IF WE KILL OURSELVES FIRST" and then they proceeded to publicly antagonize the judge, violate court orders, knowingly misrepresent their finances to the court and testify under oath that they'd publish child porn. And that's just the highlight reel.
It's all well and good to make another site, but let's be honest: reddit does about as good a job as anyone is going to do with a centralized discussion service. The only possible way to improve it is to create a decentralized alternative.
EFF has a pretty good open letter explaining their reasoning. In short: DRM is a fool's errand. It doesn't work. Everything on Netflix, Spotify, Amazon or anywhere else can be pirated despite the DRM. At no point as any DRM ever resolved any of these copyright infringement issues, and it never will, because the person you're trying to guard the secret from is the person who you're trying to reveal the secret to. It's a mathematical non-starter. Meanwhile, it does succeed in closing off devices, and criminalizing tinkerers who wish to repurpose the devices they've purchased for reasons which have nothing at all to do with piracy.
Prior to this, the status code registry officially listed for 418 has been "unassigned." This meant that there was objectively a gap between what IETF considered to be standard, and what actual widely-deployed software considered to be standard. Something needed to change. I guess this guy just wanted to make it consistent, and for one reason or another decided to start by putting the objective technical needs above our own human desire for fun.
I think a lot of us have wondered, how will the next generation of innovators possibly upset titans like Google? They have unthinkable amounts of money and resources, along with an impressive portfolio of talent, patents and subsidiaries. The answer is that they will voluntarily commit suicide by eroding all trust in their brand, and driving off their most productive people in favor of shit-stirrers, and stifling the creativity and independence of employees who might be able to invent the next big thing -- or avoid the next big disaster.
Good work, Google. Thanks for clearing the way for the next batch.
As I understand it, his track record with the domesticated ones is pretty bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I remember when everyone hated him for not actually knowing anything and writing heavily-slanted pieces on whatever bullshit stories people told him that flattered his politics. Little did we know then that the future of blogging was a world of Jon Katzes.
The true test of any language is whether it can be self-descriptive, so obviously it should have been written in itself. Also, it doesn't make use of any of the modern breakthroughs in semantic design theory, like functional re-isms, kwanzaa clauses or multilevel reflexisms. You know what? I'll just implement my own and show everyone how it ought to work.
He was the only beta test user, but the product is successfully continuing to answer e-mails for him.
Huh? I think if you read that program and don't know that `C++ > C` == false, you don't know how the post-increment operator works and you're not much of a C programmer.
"This time will be different."
"A rewrite will fix everything."
"This will make it future-proof."
"I'll go to bed after I write this last part."
Well, I'm a bit confused by that. I hear people say that, and then I see stuff like this: https://www.informationliberat...
In this case, a user tested Twitter's consistency by reporting two posts from two different accounts. The first said, "I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you." The second post changed two words: "I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you."
Twitter "carefully reviewed" the anti-white post, and determined that it did not violate their rules. The anti-black was found to be a rule violation, and the account was suspended. Why should I not take that to be a clear example of bias?
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and
2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
Twitter is at war with itself here.
I don't believe that's true at all. The Y2K bug was an example of a problem that was foreseeable in the requirements of the program. Scientists in 1980 actually predicted that the year 2000 might happen in as little as 20 years.
But if I have a problem where the upper bound on the number of calls to my recursive function that is much lower than the very large number of calls it would take to actually run out the stack, then there's no point in worrying about a stack overflow that is simply never going to happen. I'm not gonna buy 50 pounds of steak for a dinner party where I only invited 8 people.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "you run out of stack pretty quickly." You run out of space in an 8-bit int "pretty quickly," but I still use those when the situation calls for it and I know I'm never going to need that much range. I don't get to use recursion often, but when I do, it improves readability and elegance. In most cases, I value those more than execution time or a restriction on domain that I was never going to exceed in the first place.
Obviously, data loss is embarrassing. I think we all appreciate the importance of not only having multiple backups, but testing to ensure that your backups work, and are sufficient to fully restore operations. GitLab is just the latest in a long tradition of sites and services that have found themselves facing the consequences of not regularly testing their recovery plans.
But I do respect their response. They quickly recognized what had happened, and they diagnosed what went wrong with their backups. They did not try to use PR-speak to conceal their mistake -- they publicly copped to it, in plain industry-standard language that their users would understand, and even offered a livestream of their team resolving the issue. I think this has been a masterclass in how to recover from a blunder. I bet you that this is not a mistake GitLab will be repeating anytime soon.
Also, I think it's very fortunate that they're in the git repo business, and presumably users who had data that was affected by the loss still have a copy in their own local repos. Thank god for distributed SCM.