eminent101

Ah! Sorry. I did miss that they said "you still need to do things like write an impact assessment".

So what's the best course of action? Remove comments feature entirely? Maybe that's what I should do. I wonder what everyone else's doing.

> Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM?

No, they don't. My blog is not all that popular. It has got some programming puzzles, Linux HOW-TOs and stuff. Most of my audience is just my friends.

If I'm moderating all comments before they're published on the website, what's the problem? I mean, I've got a simple tech blog. I'm not going to publish random drive-by comments. Only comments that relate to my blog are ever going to be published. Am I making sense?

This is an honest question. Why does a blog need to shutdown? If they moderate every comment before it is published on the website, what's the problem? I ask because I've got a UK-based blog too. It has got comments feature. Wouldn't enabling moderation for all comments be enough?

I doubt there is any point in debating a complex topic with someone whose only responses are dismissive questions and "5 minutes of Googling"! I appreciate your thoughtful comments in this thread though!

> Trivial googling shows you ...

> This took me 5 minutes to Google.

If this is how you get your information, I doubt what you say can be taken seriously. Not to mention that the reference you quote seems like a random website nobody has ever heard of!

This was a very interesting topic and a serious discussion about this topic would at least include references to bonafide surveys or well established trustworthy sources. To find them takes much more than 5 minutes of Googling. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, so I requested that if you know something, you share it here with us.

Clearly you do not have the time to do your research either since all you have to present us is "5 minutes of Googling" that turns up a random source!

I have to say that this thread is very frustrating to read. I see @lazide is engaging with you in good faith and providing high effort, thoughtful answers. There's a lot of statistics and factors involved in a discussion like this. So I won't say @lazide's analysis is correct or flawed. But this is a good topic where a good discussion can be had and @lazide is holding up their end of the bargain.

But every response of yours is dismissive. And this makes this thread frustrating to read. You answer every reply with more questions and a tone of dismissal. If you know so much about this area, why don't you begin sharing some facts and enlighten us? Dismissing your co-commenter and answering their replies with more questions is not educating anyone of anything!

It would help if instead of answering a comment with questions, you share what you know. So how much is the cost of wiring, installation, programming and making greenhouses in the span of a year? How much copper is needed per capita? What do you know? Tell us!

But nobody in this thread thought it (simplifying assumptions) stopped. You seem to be making an assumption that someone thought that and then posting long explanations that nobody asked for. I read the "P.S." of grand-grand-parent comment as good humor. Nothing there implied that they really thought that simplifying assumptions would/should stop.

Imagine a world where every bit of humor is interpreted literally and then refuted pedantically! What kind of a world would that be?

If you take something as ordinary as “behavior tree”, 9+ consecutive words don’t surprise me. Many definitions across literature often look very alike.

> behavior trees, the system will often travel down the root of

How else would you write this? To be honest, I’d have written it exactly this way too. I’m sure many other researchers would write it this way too.

I mean this is such a weak example. If there were 9+ consecutive words matching each other in more meatier parts of the paper, then I would be very suspicious.

But the examples cited are about trivial sentences describing ordinary stuff where two people might describe the same thing in exactly the same way because there are only very few ways to describe them.

I looked at the cited examples but none of them look like “plagiarism”. They look like ordinary sentences and if I had to write them myself, I would come up with similar wordings too!

Like for example take the description of “behavior trees”. There are only so many ways you can describe a behavior tree. If 10 papers out there introduce behavior tree by describing it, some of those descriptions are bound to look very similar.

This is like arguing that my paper on prime numbers is plagiarised because the definition of prime numbers in my paper looks very similar to the definition of prime numbers in another paper.

With the amount of literature on these subjects out there, it is natural that some sentences I write would end up looking similar to some sentences in thousands of literature out there.

> Who are you to decide what style the author should use?

Who am I to decide? Well, who are you to ask me who I am to decide? Should we keep going in circles, or would you prefer we actually discuss the point at hand?

Well, seriously, to be honest, I don't care much about what style the author should use. The author should write in their style on their personal blog as much as they want. I care about it appearing on the HN main page and me having to click it and then being unhappy about my dear HN community upvoting a mundane article of questionable quality to HN main page. Who am I to do so? Well, I am the reader!

If I can't even critique an article that I read here, then what are we all even doing here?

> While the crowd here can maintain a domain

And domains can be lost too. Missed payments, error in administrating the domain, government takedowns. Many failure modes exist for domains too. Nothing in the digital world is permanent! That's why I find it disturbing that so much of our digital identities are tied to our email addresses.