cbsmith

> Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds?

There are laws against transfer bans. Also, people don't like being required to provide identity information just to buy a ticket to a live event, and venues HATE enforcing identity checks.

...and you'd be surprised how often you can get a refund on tickets just by asking your venue for a refund.

> First choice in seats goes to the most passionate and attentive fans.

Now you've opened the debate about how to determine which fans are the most passionate and attentive... ;-) Ticketmaster has a service for this that attempts to address this called Verified Fan.

> A perhaps bigger issue is the vertical integration (if that's the right term) of first-party ticket sales and resale in one company.

The monopoly findings were about vertical integration, but the resale issue wasn't. I think, if you do some research, you discover that the vertical integration issues they were concerned about are actually a bigger part of the problem.

> Ticketmaster has no real incentive to try to prevent resellers from buying up all the tickets on first sale, because it gets to charge fees on all the resales through its platform.

The incentives for to prevent abuse of the primary ticket sale is that the venues, who actually decide how tickets are sold, don't like it. If Ticketmaster doesn't make them happy, they go elsewhere and lose out on the primary market. Perhaps ironically, they are often less concerned about abuse if they still have control over the ticket resale as well, which they often do when the resale happens on Ticketmaster. In practice though, most of the resale doesn't happen on Ticketmaster; this gives both the venues and Ticketmaster plenty of incentive to combat abuse.

> I'd like to see tickets sold by dutch auction.

Pretty much everyone who first enters the ticketing industry thinks auctions are a better way to sell tickets until they learn how the industry works. Interestingly, Ticketmaster offers auction-based ticket sales. You wouldn't know this, because venues don't want to use it. You might think a dutch auction for tickets would be great, but people who experience the reality often don't. Dutch auctions work when you're selling a commodity where each item is effectively the same as the other. Often people value each seat for an event differently. Dutch auctions, by their very nature, require the a fixed time window for the auction, which makes them difficult to fit the outcome you're describing... that would more be handled by some form of yield management where venues release blocks of tickets for sale at specific time windows, which is something that already happens in the live event business.

There's all kinds of dark aspects to the live event business, but it's generally completely different from the perception of the general public.

Appears being the operative word.

It sort of doesn't matter. Bottom line is it isn't an effective platform for them.

If you think it is "essentially zero cost", I'm going to respectfully suggest you do not understand what you read. If you think they reached 13 million people on X last year, you do not understand social media.

They have made 399 posts to YouTube over the life of their YouTube channel, so that's an average of 20 posts a year.

I'm sorry, but you're projecting a subtext.

It's really weird that the EFF would post something on their own site to speak to their supporters, and that it would employ "identity-group-affirming language".

Just because they issue one post that is targeting their supporters doesn't mean that they don't care or are ignorant about the broader audience. That's ridiculous.

The "de minimis" at the end is a pretty sick burn.

You might want to read their post before commenting. They seem very much aware of the need to reach people who aren't supporters and have always actively engaged with the platforms they are critical of. It's just that X isn't really an effective use of their time anymore.

AFAIK, the Go runtime is pretty NUMA-oblivious. The mcache helps a bit with locality of small allocations, but otherwise, you aren't going to get the same benefits (though I absolutely here you about avoiding execve overhead).

Maybe? I wouldn't count on it. The US may be a net petro exporter, but it's about 1% of GDP. The other 99% are not going to do well with inflated energy prices. So exports might net go down.

...and of course the US has a lot of other industries that are hurt by this: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/g-s1-115240/iran-war-strait-h...

Short term, you might be right.

However... higher oil prices also increase energy prices across the board, and China's energy sector is dominant in renewables. I think they're more than happy to have the competing energy sources become even more expensive.

That doesn't exactly limit the impact of cutting off the supply. It's a global trade market. If China buys on the global market from other places instead of Iran because that oil isn't available, that still creates a shortage for everyone and that still pushes up the price of oil for everyone.

Yeah, once the fab is gone it's too late.

Surprised Optane wasn't kept on life support by hyperscalers and kicked in to overdrive as the demand for AI memory spiked.

From the article:

"These chemicals are not just additives; they may be migrating from the headphones into our body," said Karolina Brabcová, chemical expert at Arnika. "Daily use—especially during exercise when heat and sweat are present—accelerates this migration directly to the skin. Although there is no immediate health risk, long-term exposures, especially vulnerable groups like teenagers, are of great concern. There is no 'safe' level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones."

Doesn't matter. Under the US Court of Appeals ruling, the agreement to the terms of GPLv3 would apply, at which point all associated software would be subject to GPLv3 terms. Even if one remade everything from scratch with an AI, one would remain subject to the terms of the license.

Might be fun to take some BSD or MIT licenses and send out e-mails updating them to GPLv3...

> LLMs won't add information to context, so if the output is larger than the input then it's slop

That doesn't align with my observations. A lot of times they are able to add information to context. Sure it's information I could have added myself, but they save me the time. They also do a great job of taking relatively terse context and expanding upon it so that it is more accessible to someone who lacks context. Brevity is often preferable, but that doesn't mean larger input is necessarily slop.

Yup. The comment about the LLM generated PRs is telling. The complain is the LLM generated PRs don't describe design intent. You know how to avoid that? Tell the LLM to provide intent, and if need be, give it the intent. A PR which doesn't capture intent should be categorically rejected and the parties responsible should expect to never get a PR through without it.

One could almost imagine the article was intentional self-parody. Almost.

I think it mostly demonstrates that people don't read laws before criticizing them.

Yes. I'd recommend reading the bill if you have concerns.

That's a bit of a stretch. They split apart when he was 5 years old, and his dad was a Pakistani diplomat.

He was a Pakastani-American, so I'm not sure that really explains it, nor do I recall that being the case.

Except that there are tremendous advantages to constant-time execution, not the least of which is protection from timing security attacks/information leakage (which admittedly were less of a concern back then). Sure you can get the one instruction executed for the <6 case faster, but the transistor budget for that isn't worth it, particularly if you pipeline the execution into stages. It makes optimization far more complex...

Because then you have the inherent issues that come from open, federated systems. ;-)

They make more of their money from transaction fees and selling transaction data. The interest is a nice bonus.

Yeah, I kind of understand the answers... and yet, it seems crazy. Just insane.

Not to take credit away from Andrew for his ideas and writing, because at least he came up with the idea and wrote about it, but I don't understand how that idea of Jepsen style testing of package managers is a novel idea. Like... what testing would you want to do if you were building a package manager?