ko27

A bunch of code was autocompleted or generated by IDEs, are open source developers supposed to release the source code of that IDE to be OSI compliant?

You have a weird definition of open source. OS software developers don't release the books they have read or the tools they've used to write code.

This is fully 100% OSI compliant source code with an approved license (Apache 2.0). You are not entitled to anything more than this.

"Ratio of light speed to the area of the universe" does not determine how far you can travel in a set amount of time, because time dilation exists.

You have it the other way around. Majority of EU member countries wanted to to ban E2E, but the EU institutions prevented that.

Your examples are terrible, which probably proves the point that EU users are getting more than they are losing. Btw Europe != EU.

> Banning encrypted messaging (almost passed)

It's a positive thing that it was brought up and struck down. EU is the actually the one you should be thanking because most European countries would ban it.

> Cookie pop ups

Malicious compliance by websites, but at least users have a choice of opting out of tracking. Again, a positive thing.

> Various regulations harming open source (discussed before on HN)

The most recent changes are so watered down that it basically only applies to commercial open source companies that are turning a profit. It's helping users more than it's harming the open source community.

Devs just won't add links when informing their users that it's cheaper on their website and Apple can't do anything about it. They are not allowed to ban it according to this ruling.

How would that work? From my previous comment, let's say you add this message (no links): "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". Nobody knows how many users decided to visit the website instead.

Let's say Spotify adds this in-app message: "Buy with Apple Pay, or visit our website and pay 20% less". No links, just simple text. How would anybody be able to produce a "clear paper trail"? Spotify can only say the total number of web purchases. Apple has no choice, other than to guess how many people would have bought through the app store instead.

If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling.

Apple randomly guessing how many users would have bought the app through the store and charging that amount to another company sounds like an easy anti-competitive lawsuit.

It's funny that you, and probably a lot of HN folk, consider MPA simpler than SPA. It's opposite in my experience. The name itself is actually telling you that it has more complexity (multi page vs single page).

In practice, you can make both as complicated as you want, but SPA seems like a simpler starting point.

Yeap, that's how exponential growth works. It just never stops.

Your explanation is wrong. For an outside observer, time dilation approaches infinity at the event horizon. Singularities don't even exist for an outside observer, they have yet to happen in the infinite future.

> What would prevent a bad actor from MITMing

It's not man-in-the-middle, it's man-on-the-end. If your chat app wants to spy on you, there is nothing you can do, but at least it becomes obvious and easy to analyze because it's client side code. It's not a counter argument to interoperability. You need to trust both sides, the same way web works.

Stop basing your opinions on titles alone. Most of their blog posts on AI and quantum are exceptionally well written and researched, even the one you referenced: "Making a Dual of a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer" [1]

It's like saying quantum teleportation [2] is BS, just because you don't like the SF sounding word "teleportation".

https://blog.research.google/2022/11/making-traversable-worm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

> But gravity is caused by the discrete particles (those with mass), so is it really continuous then?

Of course the field can be continuous, even if the weight is exactly some rational number. "Discrete steps" just means that the value differences in gravitational waves is also discrete. A bigger problem, where relativity clashes with QM, is stuff like singularity and superposition. We don't have an answer for that yet.

Gravity is continuous, and to disprove that you would need to disprove Lorentz invariance and Einstein's relativity.

It's actually amusing that, just few weeks ago, people here on HN were arguing on why are we trying to quantize gravity and that it makes more sense for it to be non-quantum.

> Why is the default assumption that the universe is continuous?

Why is your default assumption that physicists haven't tried to make it discrete? You need to break Lorentz invariance to have the universe be discrete, which is an effort that's worth a Nobel prize.

> Doesn’t seem like we have a good reason for it

We have many good reasons for it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/04/17/this...

From the article: "If space is discrete, then the principle of relativity is wrong"

Particles don't have infinite precision. Position and momentum precision is limited by Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Weight precision is also limited because energy is quantized.

That, however, doesn't mean that spacetime is not a continuum.

> This is a transfer of power from a voluntary industry consortium to appointed EU technocrats

Or a transfer of power from US-centric companies to actual sovereign bodies. I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world. This sounds good to me. Note that browsers are still allowed to remove them if they are compromised.

There is one important thing everybody seems to be missing here. This applies to the theoretical AdS universe, NOT to our universe as far as we know.

You think the government doesn't know the stuff that's already on your ID? Or are you implying governments want to add backdoors for other companies to harvest data?

> Practically, I am not sure about the feasibility.

Last week I logged into my e-gov website by confirming a push notification on my authenticator app that's tied to my e-ID card to download my birth certificate. No copy pasting needed. Random websites now even support logging in without passwords by using your smartphone passkeys.

I am sure they can make it work for a simple yes/no (over 18) challenge-request scenario.

> Plus, not everybody has a smartphone. Not everyone accepts Android or iOS at their current implementations. Do those people remain without access to the www?

We are talking about adult content. The alternative is having that content banned. Many democratic countries have already done that, like South Korea. I don't prefer this scenario.

All the responses you are getting are very US centric. Just to give an example how you could do this in the EU, today. Every country is now issuing (or planning to issue soon) electronic ID cards with digital signatures that can be scanned with your smartphone. The plan is to allow users to attest they are over or under 18 without revealing any other personal information. They will release an official EU app (like they did for Covid) or Google/Apple will add the appropriate secure API.

I don't necessarily agree we need this, but to claim it's impossible to do this in a secure way is ridiculous.

Airlines are probably the laziest of them all. You should always store the original name. If other foreign people are supposed to write or read it, then ask passengers to write in their Romanized name as well. Both should be displayed, but only the original should be used for "ID" purposes.

And then you'll finally realize it's your government that's fucked up, EU is just a reflection of it, because you'll end up with the same E2E control, like the UK.

You should be glad EU exists not wishing to leave it. More than half of countries support this kind of control, and yet it probably won't pass because of a minority of countries. Seems like EU will actually end up preventing this from spreading across the continent.

I think the argument against thread-per-core as the default can be made simply:

- if you are CPU bound, work stealing will be better for most cases

- if you are IO bound, thread-per-core might work better, but again, you have enough CPU headroom that the performance doesn't really matter

IMO, work stealing is a better default to encode into language API

We are talking about consumers vs companies. Of course governments will "extort", that's what regulations are for.

You are right, I don't know why you are downvoted. META can't charge depending on your tracking consent, they'll have to do it for everybody in the EU.

> Big if, not everyone is using .NET latest on VS, with latest version of every library using async/await.

The analyzers are part of the build, they work everywhere (command line, VS code). Either way, I am glad we finally agree that async await "works fine" for modern .NET.

> so I don't know, maybe I actually already read them?

I did, I even responded to your links with the official conclusion from the NET team on those issues. Now maybe your turn to read?