throwaway373438

They are suggesting lobbying to change the law, rather than struggling with current law in court.

Whenever discussing the US flag code it's important to mention that the statute is unconstitutional as determined in United States v. Eichman.

What the flag code says about clothing is as irrelevant as any other hot take on the issue.

Why would you care about per-journey statistics? Surely all that's demonstrating is that cars are often used for very brief, non-highway travel.

When the question is of how to travel between cities or states, why do you find the relative safety of low speed non-highway driving to be relevant?

Others have commented that many of these are general shell or terminal quoting problems.

Something that stood out for me is that the author did not mention ^V, which is very useful in quoting metacharacters. Take the tab example: The author seems to imply that PCRE is needed to match a tab because there is no \t escape sequence in BRE/ERE. Presumably he cannot just type in a tab because he's using a shell like bash, and tab has a special interpretation and cannot be typed in as a string literal.

The way around this is to use ^V as a terminal escape sequence, followed by simply pressing the tab key. This technique can be used to insert other control characters as string literals in arguments. Want to grep for EOF? "grep ^V^D" will get you there.

The answer to #4 is probably that the goal isn't to always have ice cream. The goal is to run a profitable business.

Doubling the cost of the ice cream infrastructure to avoid a 25% downtime may not be a profitable venture -- especially if the downtime is scheduled to occur while the store is closed.

Ah, I see your point.

Here's the catch: Large buffer sizes only increase efficiency for sequential reads. mmap() is still much faster for random access within a file. Doubly so, because we need to not just read() but also lseek() for every read.

The inefficiencies of read() can be minimized in the sequential case only.

Yes, the overhead is per-syscall. The number of read() syscalls shrinks as the per-call buffer grows.

With mmap() of course we only ever have one syscall to create the initial mapping. Everything else is a memory read.

We can get read() down to just one syscall too, with a 4G buffer ;) I can't recall if GB sized buffers are possible, but I have certainly used MB sized read buffers for exactly this reason.

Kind of. The real problem is that E2E means losing all server-side videoconferencing features - very few people actually want E2E.

It's not an add-on feature. The ramifications are a completely different way of shuttling the data between endpoints.

Well, we generally do not prohibit abusive speech.

What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant.

The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture.

The lines are drawn around consent. Not content.

I don't think the person you're replying to is being dishonest. You've simply listed reasons as to why this content isn't acceptable. Of course there are often reasons why content and beliefs might be rejected by mainstream thought -- "it's a pack of lies" is chief among them.

There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example.

Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.

Program identifiers use exact matches. The analogy works fine understanding this context.

It's possible to extend any analogy in a way that doesn't make sense, which is what you've done.

It seems like your complaint may be that you simply don't like, or perhaps don't understand, analogies in general.

It sounds like the original analogy is apt, and your followup analogy isn't.

What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments?

None of those things would work.

Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.

And this is why Google had to copy the interface -- otherwise their runtime would not operate with other existing products. As you can see given your example, the analogy is a perfect fit.

Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.

The car's width is absolutely its interface with respect to roadway interoperability.

We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not involve UX. We are talking about interfaces between functional components. The analogy is spot on.