fuligo

I have twenty years of professional experience in web app and website development. I'm currently in Germany, but my schedule is flexible - I can accommodate your timezone. I'm also available to work on-site.

Core Skills:

* full stack web development

* server-side programming, especially APIs

* project rescue: if your project is behind schedule and your code is a mess, I'll come in and get you back on track!

* MVPs and early stage product dev: if you're looking to get off the ground and need a reliable programmer to launch and maintain your tech stack, I'm your guy

* performance optimization: is your web app slow? I can help!

Favorite Technologies:

* Programming languages: JavaScript (client and server side), Lua, Go, Ruby, PHP

* Libraries: jQuery, React, Three.js, D3, Bootstrap

* Databases: Firebase, MySQL, Postgresql, Mongo

Contact me: [email protected]

I am a full stack generalist programmer with a heavy web background and more than 20 years of experience.

My favorite tools and tech:

  - HTML5/JS/CSS (browsers are awesome!)
  - JavaScript: jQuery, React, Three.js/WebGL, Handlebars, Isotope/Masonry
  - Server side: NginX, PHP, node.js, C, Lua, Java
  - Database: mongodb, MySQL/MariaDB
  - Tools of the trade: text editor, git, command line
  - Machine learning: Caffe framework +Python

Contact me: [email protected]

A lot has been accomplished with public awareness and public outcry has repeatedly averted disaster - so far. But the proponents of this come back with another attempt at least once a year, in both Europe and the US, and they have money on their side. It's amazing net neutrality has gone on as long as it did, against vast corporate and political interests.

Whereas net neutrality advocates have to beat this back every time everywhere, their opposition has to be successful only once, and only in one of these regions, for the whole thing to fall.

It is, I'm afraid, just a matter of time.

I'd just like to say in closing that I want to pay money for a product I'm not getting right now. The main argument against this seems to be that by allowing me to pay for it, this product would suffer. I will bow to the majority opinion and get out of here.

It's funny how those pass for prohibitive reasons why something can't happen until suddenly these reasons go away. This is exactly what happened to music downloading. There were international sales, fears of organizations competing with their own sales partners, and oh dear all those unsolvable problems that come with offering content free of DRM. Oh the horror. And then, all of that went away.

Arguing in favor of the status quo is always a safe position, because obviously you have current management on your side. That doesn't mean consumers don't have a nasty habit of breaking out of their straight jackets. There are good reasons why torrenting TV shows is so popular, and it only partially has to do with the price tag. I would argue that for most downloaders, the primary reason is actually quality and freedom from hassle.

Things are reasonably impossible until they aren't.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, so this is the last time I'm going to respond to that (no offense): I want exactly the torrent file. I don't want them to pile on any of the additional crap they assume I need or should need.

Anyone who wants subtitles, or dubs, or a free rootkit, or whatever can use the existing sales channels. I want you to give me your product, as is, without any additional considerations or features, just straight up. I want the torrent file, and nothing else, no guarantees, no contracts, no nothing.

Just me giving you money for the right to legally consume what you made. Not some version of it, just the thing, with nothing added or subtracted.

You seem to assume torrenting shows is popular because it's free. Well, it's not free, it carries a substantial legal risk. There may well be a big portion of downloaders who don't have the money to buy the show legally. But the rest of them do it because of the benefits of the medium, not its price tag.

Offer us exactly the benefits and the convenience of the bootlegged medium, just give us an option to pay you for it. It really is that simple. Nobody is advocating you should cease any of your current offerings. Just create an additional sales channel and allow the money to flow in.

This is obviously wrong in principle. The way music downloads work right now is exactly what I've been describing - music from iTunes or Amazon comes without DRM, and they allow me to purchase songs wherever I am, from wherever I am.

If your argument is those DRM-less music files don't make it onto Torrent sites, you're mistaken. Nevertheless, they sell them without DRM, because customers pressured them into it.

I buy it on iTunes, I put it into my music folder, copy it around to all my machines, it's just fine.

So I'm a German national being in France right now. If I decide to buy some music from iTunes, I click on the "buy" button and stuff starts downloading. However, if I try to purchase a TV show, it starts out by showing me only German shows. Deep down, I can find outdated US originals with subtitles - which is the best option they give me! What happens when I try to actually purchase one? "There is a problem with your iTunes account". Oops, I'm currently in the wrong country, no show for me! There is no getting around the fact that this sucks, it sucks needlessly, and to the detriment of everyone involved.

They would make more than they make now, that's for sure. Because right now, there is no way for me to pay them.

> Because, an extra cost, for example, would be the subtitling.

I don't want subtitling, just because I'm from a foreign country. What little legal content consumption options I have, they always and mandatorily come with either dubbing or subtitles.

> HBO would have to hire people to do this job per episode, per show, etc.

Like I said, that's what they (or in this case you, if you work for them) think, but that's not what I asked for. I want the show, within a few days after it aired, in an open format, with none of that internationalization crap or any added "value". People who want those extra things can use any of the existing sales channels.

I want what I can have right now illegally and conveniently, made legal by paying for it.

This might not cover or replace the existing subscriber base, but it would be an opportunity to bring additional customers on board at next-to zero cost. Just by shutting up and taking my money.

I want a DRM-less HD video file that I can play on any computer, when I want. I want to be able to download it from anywhere I might be in the world, and my nationality should not have an effect on the availability of the content.

Heck, if HBO had a web-based tip jar, I would just pay something for every Game of Thrones episode and otherwise go straight ahead and torrent it. You know, HBO, don't "offer" me anything, just give me an option to pay you which makes my download quasi-legal, and I'll take care of the rest myself.

The point is though that while the mutations themselves are "accidents" and the result is always characterized by a certain randomness, evolution as a problem-solving algorithm isn't itself accidental. While some (or even many) if the characteristics of an organism might be incidental, some major features tend to have a good reason for being selected. Self-awareness, I assert, is such a feature, because it carries implications too large not to have an effect on selection.

  Computers are very, very, very far from being like humans, especially 
  when it comes to consciousness. The problem is different, that the system, 
  the military and economic and political system doesn't really need 
  consciousness.

I know it's just a thesis, but when you think about what our mindless AIs lack, it makes sense. They're characterized by a complete incapability for global reasoning and an inability for personal consideration. You might argue, as the article does, this is exactly how we want our tools to behave, but then we might have to accept there could be hard limits on the complexity of mental tasks these systems are able to perform without access to higher reasoning.

In the linked article, I got curious about this paragraph:

"Everything was seemingly resolved, and there was no public reaction on Twitter. It was only once the man "posted about losing his job on Hacker News" that the pushback started, and then escalated exponentially, with even ostensible allies abetting the abuse by tone and choice policing."

If I recall, and I might well be wrong, the discussion was already underway when that guy posted. I'm also having trouble with identifying anything in the content of his post that would put him at fault for what happened afterwards (which was deplorable).

Can anyone with a better recollection than me weigh in on this? The article doesn't sound particularly unbiased, and neither does it have to be, but are the facts right here or not?

It's not irrational. I'm a man and I avoid groups of people at night, too. It's an absolutely reasonable precaution. I avoid other men because I don't want to put my life in danger unnecessarily, and I avoid women mostly because I don't want them to be alarmed by my presence.

These are what I would call rational fears, because they're about minimizing risk. It's also very clear that, say, if I required sudden medical assistance, I would probably trust any stranger I come across in the city at night to do the right thing 99.9% of the time. These are the mechanics of false negatives vs. false positives.

> I don't expect other people to cater towards my fear

Exactly. This is an important point because being afraid of something another person might do doesn't necessarily mean it's an accurate reflection of that person's intent.

And this is the fundamental breaking point where I think reasonable people start to feel a disconnect in the flow of the dongle story, because Richards is asserting both now and then that her life was in danger, and while it's easy to at least consider this feeling was real, the main question becomes did those guys do anything to cause that fear?

Because if they did not, it's unreasonable to blame them for causing this fear. I don't think a lot of people would say this fear itself is unjustified, but using it to attack someone who apparently did nothing to cause it is, and this whole disaster is a missed opportunity to talk about the factors that cause it.

This is not to detract from the stupidity of genital jokes in general, which amazingly both parties appear to be fond of.