studentrob

Doesn't HN have mods to correct article titles in cases like this? 7 hours in and I see "Backdoor in Claude Code for VS Code extension on the Cursor Marketplace"

I don't think you understand Chesterton's point. It's not that hard to see it is valuable to know why things were built.

It's the same reason we study history, to know what came before us so that we can make good decisions going forward.

Not arguing that it's a new thing, but there is always another way.

Making the problem bigger is an interesting way to go about it. I will grant that doing so does expand the number of people impacted, and therefore the number of people interested in solving the problem is also bigger, as well, perhaps, as the apparent pay off for solving it. But ultimately, the solution is going to be something that could have been applied by the same people who expanded the size of the problem.

You don't seem to grasp the thrust of the article. Chesterton does not set up two sides. And I don't know what you mean by "necessary, unjustified fences." Those two words stand in juxtaposition. If a fence is necessary, it can be justified. If it's not necessary, it cannot be justified.

> Chesterton will have to contend with our time honored tradition of tearing down fences.

The point is not to prevent teardown of fences. It's to know why they were setup in the first place. If it was put there for no reason other than to spend what's in the budget, then there is no barrier to removing it. But if it was there for good reason then you need to prepare a counter argument for why it should be removed.

Unpopular opinion: This conflicts with SV's "disrupt everything" mantra.

> To play the devil's advocate: Is it though?

Yes. Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.

The problem you describe exists in both scenarios, and is resolved with enforcement. You can sneakily break the law, and you run the risk of getting caught for fraud.

> FYI this is the same guy who praised FTX.

I'm unfamiliar. Is there a source to this claim?

The whole point is to not charge users twice for both the volume AND the rate of flow.

It's not hot button because there is no FCC chair. If the dems seat a chair, regardless of who it is, that would allow grassroots campaigns to reactivate.

Under Trump, I believe broadband ISPs were implementing data caps, and they backed off on that after Biden was elected. And some telecoms offer zero rated content. It's far more common overseas for telecoms and content providers to partner in providing access, so you get places like the Philippines where Facebook basically is the internet.

Yes. Those are people who think they can go hands free, use their phone or watch a movie while on autopilot.

Thank you for that context. It seems like breaches are happening every month now. What do you think needs to happen to ensure these gigantic companies secure data? I can imagine (a) new legislation enabling bigger, swifter fines or (b) anti-trust action. Do you think we should prioritize one over the other, do both, or something else?

Clarified in another comment, what I should have said is it's decriminalized, and therefore may have a different culture around recreational use that may or may not suit everyone.

Certain parts of the US have that culture, like traders on wall street who work 100 hour weeks, yes. Part of the culture doesn't mean it's everyone. I don't know where that lands for CR, I just know someone who went there specifically for recreational use because it's decriminalized. My point was only to be aware of this potential cultural difference, and that it may not be for everyone. I'm sorry if that is hurtful to anyone. I should have said that drug use is decriminalized and accepted, which is the real difference.