rimunroe

> I deliberately ignored it, because it was all irrelevant.

Attempting to have a discussion with someone who participates like that pointless.

Exactly!

Yeah I gotchu. I have no idea how that would go in a court for real. I was just trying to explain how and why things are the way they (sometimes) are

It looks like that was MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., which relied on MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. for the relevant part of the ruling.

The person I was responding to was saying that anytime you viewed copyrighted content with a browser you’d necessarily be committing copyright infringement. I’m not a lawyer but I can imagine that the reasoning there would be slightly different from someone simply viewing a post in a browser as part of the intended use of the site.

Sure, but that seems different from what I was addressing. The person I was responding to was saying that the law as a whole usually doesn’t make sense. They were saying that in the context of arguing that if the law didn’t consider viewing a page of copyrighted copying as involving copying due to the technical basis of it having to transfer bits to your computer then the law didn’t make sense. My point was that laws don’t have to encompass or fully specify all edge cases, and that the ways laws are written can be open to interpretation. I think I removed a sentence before posting about the purpose of finders of facts in the US system like juries or judges in bench trials.

> Because there's no physical mechanism for the information to be transmitted over a computer network other than by copying the bytes.

Your response seems to ignore everything in my comment other than the second sentence. I was asking why that detail should matter as far as the law is concerned, and I gave some reasons I don't think that would be good or practical.

And this example is not just due to people not taking the trouble to write fully specified rules. I don't think such rules could even be written. You can just do your best to cover the cases you can think of. The complexity of society is incomprehensibly vast and constantly changing, and the law has to have wiggle room to account for it.

Could you elaborate in what way you find the law mostly doesn't make sense? It has to be flexible in order to work with actual humans. Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Usually when we talk about copying it's someone making a duplicate so it can be accessed later. Only a very technical user is going to be diving into their cache to view that content after the fact. The vast majority of people don't understand that the browser is storing anything on their computer, much less how to access it before it's purged.

Wait, what do you think the A stands for?

I was about to say that libcern has some truly ancient bits in it and it's still being used today

Do you think the left broadly supports prison labor or that carveout in the 13th Amendment? Personally I've never seen a leftist voice any feelings on them other than contempt.

> but unless the entire hiring process is remote (I've done this once so it's not impossible)

FYI this is the norm for fully remote positions, at least in my experience

I have several Griswolds and they’re my daily drivers. I love cooking on them, but stainless steel is so much easier to clean. I can scour it as hard as I want and it’ll be fine without any additional work.

My grandmother isn’t going to be using a 12” Lodge cast iron skillet no matter how much exercise she gets.

> Twitter became a global phenomenon with the same UI and an even slower ruby on rails implementation behind it, despite the constant fail whale.

I’m not sure what this comment is responding to. I don’t want a constant fail whale or a slow experience, and I don’t think a lot of other people would want that either.

> As you're already self-hosting ATproto anyway, why not self-host a mastodon instance as well?

Hosting a PDS is free, plus it’s considerably lighter weight conceptually than a whole Mastodon instance!