sls
Joined 17 years ago
Karma
320
Submissions
121
Member since
Dec 5
I will disengage from a comment thread if it appears to me that you aren't conversing in good faith. You can have the last word.
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 16 days ago
> there were people working as authors writing plays and the like before you had people working as scientists
Indeed, the entire history of humanity is that of creation and sharing and teaching - of ideas, stories, songs, poems. Copyright is a mere three centuries old. And somehow people have come to believe that without it, creation will cease. Even while simultaneously correctly understanding that virtually every person who writes, sings, raps, dances, etc will never be able earn anything but trival sums from doing so even under the current legal regime.
It's worth going to read Macaulay's speeches from the early nineteenth century to see how little what copyright supporters claim as the intent of copyright was seen as such at the time these ideas were being rendered into law.
https://ia601406.us.archive.org/34/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.2... beginning at p 156/pdf page 180
Comment · 3 months ago
I'm having a hard time believing
(a) that you think Wave failed because of the tech stack, and also
(b) that you think when a product launch fails, all products that conceptualize the market/problem in that category will also fail.
I'm hesitating to post this, but really, if that's not what you're saying, it feels like trying to make a zinger has overwhelmed your actual point.
Comment · 4 months ago
Is there going to be a no-true-scotsman if I ask about the last time the US had a budget surplus (4 in a row iirc)?
Comment · 7 months ago
For readers from outside the Buddhist context, it's worth noting that the above comment is written from an entirely Mahāyāna perspective. For example, it isn't true that "every Buddhist tradition agrees that all living beings possess Buddha nature," that's a very specifically Mahāyāna idea that arose centuries after the death of the mendicant Gotama who is known as the Buddha.
The concept of "religion" as it is meant in the modern context is only a few centuries old, as is the idea of "Buddhism", but to the extent that we can think of the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, it's probably most helpful to think of Mahāyāna and Theravāda as different "religions." I frankly think that the Vajrayāna subset of Mahāyāna probably is best thought of as a different "religion" as well, but it's not my area and I wouldn't suggest anyone take my thoughts on that topic with any great heft.
Comment · 5 years ago
You cited a dead link. What I posted is the Internet Archive record of what was originally at that link.
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
It's not really misspellings, it's reanalysis, and it's not at all particular to English.
Comment · 5 years ago
Your reference, NextDNS's discussion of their approach and how it differs from others, is from 2019 and no longer correctly represents how pihole works. Pihole has handled this since release 5.0.
Comment · 5 years ago
I have in mind things like this [1]. I no longer have my undergraduate text or notes but I recall going through a similar exercise.
Comment · 5 years ago
Have you ever actually looked at the Schrödinger equation? [1] It's pretty simple. If you've had freshman physics, you can learn enough to derive it in a matter of days or at most weeks. There's not a lot of room in there for the kind of thing you are suggesting.
It's much more plausible that the uncomfortable human-centric thing we need to let go is the idea that our perceptions about macroscopic reality should be indicative of how things actually are.
Comment · 5 years ago
I rarely bother to address this argument:
> open source software is only free if your time and expertise are free
but since you seem to actually be trying to discuss this in a thoughtful way, please note that we're not given a choice between free software that takes time and expertise to use and maintain vs closed software that takes no time or expertise to maintain. To mimic your original phrase, Windows 10 Pro is only $199 if your time and expertise is free. Going further, in my experience it's often been the case that the free software takes less time and less expertise to use and maintain.
Also, it's worth mentioning that you are conflating two different things, open source software and free software, a distinction that often doesn't matter but is central when the point at hand is the ethics of free-as-in-freedom software vs non-free software, a distinction the term open source was deliberately created to elide. You are also conflating free-as-in-freedom with free-as-in-beer by opposing the "software is only freedom-free" with "your time and expertise are free-as-in-beer free".
Finally it's not clear to me why you went on to address the pragmatics of non-free hardware or the fact that human effort is necessary to build computers, maintain distros, write kernels etc. Is there a claim that it's unethical to try to run free software on the hardware that you have, or that free(dom) software must always be provide without cost on hardware that is both free(dom) and without cost? If not, then computer users can still spend a small amount of money, relative to utility, to buy a computer that runs free(dom) software.
I'm not disputing your claims that accessibility software on Windows or iOS is better than that on Linux, because I don't know the space. It's an unrelated argument, afaict. To illustrate this, simply imagine that some government or corporation had decided to make high-quality accessibility software available under a free license. (I am reminded of Intel's work supporting Dr. Hawking.) You wouldn't conclude from this that all your previous thoughts about free and open source software vs closed/commerical software were wrong, I assume.
Comment · 5 years ago
You have: 1500 mA * hours * 3.7 V
You want: watt * hours
* 5.55
/ 0.18018018Comment · 5 years ago
miniKanren is great. Here[1]'s Will Byrd on the difference between it and Prolog.
Comment · 6 years ago
You seemingly make a strong, baseless, and unscientific ontological claim, saying that we have one set of mathematical formalisms in our theoretical model that are "really real" and others that are not "really real". Surely the word "virtual" can no more be used to support this claim than the word "imaginary" can be used to distinguish the reality of real and complex numbers.
Comment · 6 years ago
>Copyright holder could give someone else authorisation to sue on their behalf, e.g., through a license.
They can't assign the bare right to sue. To have standing the plaintiff will need to hold at least one of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S. Code § 106 aiui. Cf Righthaven cases, Silvers v Sony Pictures