encomiast

This argument seems to presuppose that a language is more perfect if it has fewer influences and contributions from other languages. But you didn’t actually state that assumption, and certainly didn’t support it. Maybe the most perfect language is a perfect amalgamation of all languages. That’s at least as plausible to me.

Maybe they meant to add the np-complete version, in which case, do you really need more than one?

You clearly have not seen the wrinkles on my body.

It’s a feature (or bug)of US democracy that one of its primary values, its reason for existing, is to support individuals and their freedom. Individuals are the values.

I think I’ve had the same $23 in my wallet for four years. Can’t remember the last time I carried a coin around.

I guess as a company I would agree that it's fine to implement a useless control to get a customer. As a tax-payer...not so much. We spend so much money (at least in the U.S.) on garbage.

I bumped into controls mandating security scans, when people running the scans don't need to know anything about the results. One example prevented us from serving public data using Google Web Services because the front-end was still offering 3DES among the offered ciphers. This raised alerts because of the possibility of Sweet32 vulnerability, which is completely impractical to exploit with website scale data sizes and short-lived sessions (and modern browsers generally don't opt to use 3DES). Still, it was a hard 'no', but nobody could explain the risk beyond the risk of non-compliance and the red 'severe' on the report.

We also had scans report GPL licenses in our dependencies, which for us was a total non-issue, but security dug in, not because of legal risk, but compliance with the scans.

I understand how this feels. If this was me, that 'October 19, 2024' line would already be gnawing away at my psyche. 'I said I was going to write more, it's almost been a month…'.

This is one of the reasons I took the dates off of my posts (even though I think they might be useful to readers).

Reading the article it doesn't sound like these are land use restrictions imposed by the town that they can simply change. Rather these are contract clauses in deeds or the practice of companies leasing the vacant space where another store might go. My hunch is a that a small town isn't equipped for the lawsuit that happens if they tell a company like Alberstons that they are not allowed to lease vacant land in their town on the theory that a competing chain might want to build there.

Maybe I misunderstood the piece, but it seems the last sentence, "Well the code is indeed correct" suggests it _did_ work (although I'm also a little confused about what it means when all values are '-' which I interpreted as 'no piece played').

I know the point of the piece is the python syntax here, but I got stuck on: "judge things like code quality / speed / conciseness etc."

Do people generally write concise code on right off the bat when confronted with a new problem? I've always taken the same approach I would with writing: get something that works; refactor for concision. Maybe everyone else is playing 3D chess and I'm still on Chutes and Ladders?

Aren't trademarks attached to specific goods and services? In other words the trademark protecting the yeasty food spread based does not prevent someone from using the word for something like a record label: https://www.marmiterec.com or a static site generator.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

Not sure the first-person, movie-trailer-style, "I'm going to make a run for it" while dramatic music plays is really the right way to report this.

Watching that seriously intensifies my imposter syndrome.

I am also a habitual walker, though I don't typically get eight miles in. I often listen to books and podcasts while walking and at times wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice by not just letting my mind wander. One the one hand, it is about the only time I allow myself a solid hour to listen to something, but on the other maybe it's time better spent giving 'space to work' as you say.

I guess it just depends on your point of view. I would have found a sentence lauding the railroads and the mechanized opening of the West to be pretty 'cringe' if they had not mentioned this.

Doesn’t the article touch on this:

> On leaving the company, he acquired the intellectual property [IP] rights from his former employer…

Ooh, Now do photography … or abstract painting … or fine wine … or hedge fund. Any field where the judgement of quality is subjective is going to be full of hailed charlatans and unrecognized geniuses. It's one of the true ironies of art.

The story about a two-bit plagiarizer is interesting, but the author doesn't really make the connection between hoim the rest of the music world. He refers to the Lera Auerbach Sonata as "pretentiously banal" but in the same breath says her "work has been performed by some of the best soloists alive." What are we to make of that? That the author is a good judge of the music and performers are poor judges of the music, even though they are presumably more intimately familiar with it?

Maybe it's the music critic who has no clothes, rather than the composer. Maybe we're all naked.

People are busy. Not everyone is willing to spend their time diving into the latest ad block tricks. Some have decided that it's a better use of time to just avoid sites that use dark patterns and aggressively anti-user-friendly design to get you to click on ads instead of the actual content you came to see. This doesn't mean they lack skill — it's possible they just have different priorities.

This seems like a cease and desist letter waiting to happen. Are you worried that using the name “Jeopardy” and styling it so closely to the actual game might bring Sony lawyers knocking on your door?

As similar complaint:

> "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas are based soundly in theory."

…and then asking why cinematography is taught differently: https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/

I'm sorry, I didn't read "most financially successful humans" to mean corporations.

Exactly where do "exploitation rights" come from if not copyright? Anyone who is going to enter a contract for these "exploitation rights" is going to want exclusive rights so others can't just share, republish, copy, etc. This is what copyright affords those who want to sell "exploitation rights"

I think this is a specious argument. The value in intellectual property is the right to copy it. You can make a similar argument for other property: you own your car, but the right to drive it was not created by you. You own your house, but the right to occupy it and prevent others from occupying it is not created by you. It's not clear if you are arguing that there is some natural right to own and inherit a car that is granted by some authority other than the state and where that authority comes from.

I'm curious about the argument that is framed with "it presumes the unnatural (even if useful/positive) present state of copyright as a naturally occurring thing."

I don't think this should be discounted so quickly. Nothing in this domain — money, private property, laws, justice — are obviously naturally occurring things. One of the great traditions in the effort to understand how rights and value come to be is the creation of narratives that connect the rights to early natural states. We see this in Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, etc. You could just ask the question of whether the current state "works well", but then you are in the wheelhouse of Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarians. Fine, but so far these kinds of arguments don't lead to worlds many of us like.

> We allow inheritance to exist because it creates social good

FWIW, this is also why we have copyright. In fact, this is explicitly why we allow copyright in US.

[citation needed]

But it's not hectoring (and was not intended to be rude). Authors build things. Just like people who build companies, houses, inventions, etc. There are a lot of theories of how ownership happen, but many (at least in the US and Europe) come from some for of the labor theory of ownership. We own the things we put labor into and create. Unless you have a competing theory of ownership that explains why other assets can benefit the family of those who create things of value after death but not works of art, music, writing, etc., you haven't really made a cogent argument. Calling me rude is just an ad hominem argument, which we shouldn't entertain as serious.

So the wife that supported the author can't profit off their assets? The author can't pass on this to children? Should we do the same thing for other property like land and money?