ivanstojic

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings.

Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space.

Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

Remember. Liu Cixin said the following about Chinese internment camps for Uighur:

“Would you rather that they be hacking away at bodies at train stations and schools in terrorist attacks? If anything, the government is helping their economy and trying to lift them out of poverty,” Liu said, adding: “If you were to loosen up the country a bit, the consequences would be terrifying.”

I wonder if that’s also something where his vision collides with reality.

I know this is cynical of me, but it’s 2021, and I’ve read enough apology emails from companies saying “whoops we didn’t mean to exfil your data, so sorry!” to know that this checkbox only means “don’t exfil my data right now.”

There’s probably a practical argument to be made against the theoretical possibility of building such a system: I think that just the halting problem is proof that we cannot implement a system that does this.

But I think there are two arguments that might be worth more from a practical perspective: first, there are certainly programs with sections that could be optimized if you knew of some restriction on inputs. However, you could do that with tools available today (turn a variable parameter to a function into a constant, then compile and decompile the program). But by extension there must be programs whose representation is already the simplest form of expressing the computation they do (eg. hailstone sequence).

Second, there are real world influences that reduce a program from theoretical computation to the practice of it (I/O considerations are just one example).

The language that could be fully analyzed would have to strip some of that complexity and in process become sub-Turing-complete.

Since my team at work maintains something like a data flow language, I always find a different question that interests me: what if we selectively gave up Turing completeness? What if we embraced pure functional languages for more of our work? What could that buy us in terms of maintainability/quality of software?

> They are saying they view their obligations and the attitude of their interlocutors as artifice and sincerity as idiocy

This seems like a big leap in conclusions just from calling life (or social norms) a game.

Historically, even just a few decades ago, if you had reach of sixteen thousand (!!) people, you were incredibly publicly exposed.

To think that we now file it as “not that much” is something I can’t wrap my mind around.

I think the old “Mossad is gonna Mossad” thing is still true. Good security practices are mandatory, and will keep you safe 99% of the time.

But when you have what appear to be state level actors using 0 day exploits... you will not stop them.

I think the reverse of the question is also important: why would anyone want to fly on a plane made by such a colossal company that any blame for flaws (design/technical or decision process) is diluted to the point that hundreds of deaths result in no measurable punishment?

The title of the article makes it seem like having someone fall in love with you is a desirable outcome.

> your reviewer will literally fall in love with you

No, author, no they will not. They might appreciate my professionalism and focus on correctness if I follow this advice though.

I think the 40% ortho keyboard model doesn't really accurately represent what that class of keyboards look like.

When I was working in Oracle, there was a running gag that there were more full time attorneys employed by the company, than there were engineers.

Maybe that is what you need to run a business like that?

Doesn't this do what you are referring to?

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/awsaccountbilling/latest/aboutv2...

I think this is an age old question that's been discussed thoroughly.

If somebody offers you a lot of money to do something immoral, and you chose to accept it that makes YOU immoral. It also should cast a shadow on the person offering you the deal because they too know what they are asking of you is immoral.

I don't think anyone in this deal is acting in the best interest of users. Some of these options may be better than others for indie devs.

No, I do not consider that to be strong arming. I consider that to be baiting.

As my post says: it's unclear to me which tactic was used with which developers, or how those contracts influenced the promises developers made to preorder customers.

We don't know mostly because those contracts are secret.

It's important to remember that Epic games isn't a champion of freedom here.

After Epic store launched on the PC in 2018, Epic used their platform's growing popularity to bait and/or strong arm (it's unclear to me) indie developers into exclusivity contracts on Epic's game store. This action caused a massive uproar in the gaming community because with those exclusivity deals, Epic made developers break existing preorders.

This isn't about freedom or choice or walled gardens. It's about cutting off a slightly bigger slice of a billion dollar pie.

Actually it's not that. It's not "withdraws visas for online only universities."

It's actually no visa even if you are on-site and taking in person classes but take more than 1 class (3 credits) from online classes.

Full text: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-ex...

I can confirm: if you try to back out, you are presented with a blue bar at the top saying something like "before you leave..."

https://imgur.com/a/93wjGED

I suspect that it is this partial download that they are talking about.

That said, I can't tell whether or not I've used it recently. I know I don't use it when I play with personal projects, but I don't know what other sites do because I rarely have a console pulled up in my browser when I'm just using it, rather than developing.

That's actually covered in the deeper linked docs on Gemini.

Setting it up on a separate protocol / markup allows you to make hard reasoning about what kind of privacy, features and protection you get as a user, rather than relying on the goodwill or current promises of your content provider.

Entr requires one watch per file. One tool that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is fswatch, which uses directory based patterns and works more akin to a find: it outputs changed file names to stdout.

Interesting thing to look at and see if it maybe suits you better.

I worked for several large companies where the on-machine (not containerized) development was very clean.

That hygiene required a large team of dev tools engineering to support it. For the smaller companies, dockerizing individual projects for development was... a regrettable but easy shortcut to not having to wrangle with local setup.

I wonder if this author never experienced or already forgot fighting with venv/pipenv/conda?

I'm willing to accept more flexibility in my phone because of how I perceive it.

My computer has always been a bicycle for the mind. My phone is an assistive device that I use to look at cat photos while waiting in a line.

I could not care a rat's ass if I have to replace my cat addiction with taking a paper book along with me. I do very much care for a platform where authors of myriad free/open source software can continue to create.

So we are moving back into a locked boot loader state of the world.

While I understand there are advantages to what Apple is doing, I worry that we will soon see lockdowns to what apps you can run on your computer. As an Apple fanboy for at least 20 years, that makes me sad.

I may be reading the Twitter terms incorrectly, but it seems like any solution will be against it.

TOS states:

> You may not send unsolicited Direct Messages in a bulk or automated manner, and should be thoughtful about the frequency with which you contact users via Direct Message.

This is exactly what the proposed solution would have to do.

When I land on the page, I get three history entries in my browser as your page loads. This means that if I have no interactions with the site and want to go back to HN, I need to click back three times.

While I get that this isn't a bug, it is a usability peeve that I notice on more and more sites lately.

When I navigate to that page on my iOS device, all I see is a green upper bar with a hamburger menu. Clicking on the menu offers "log in" and "add toucan"

I clicked back.

Additionally, it looks like the OP's program is based on an open source program "InstagramBot" which seems to live as a copy in the OP's repo without a matching LICENSE.

You may have spent $0, as in that's the amount that left your pocket. However, you invested your time, your skills and expertise.

While it's cool that you are making headway, a better question is: does this financially make sense in the long run.

I wonder if the author drives cars? Everything is flawless, but the steering when the car goes in reverse is just wrong.

It's one of those things that should immediately pop out as "feels wrong" in interaction design.

Don't be so bummed out sounding. I'm sure we'll solve it as soon as we get a good year of Linux on the desktop.