19eightyfour

11 ms·

61.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
The issue is cost. Your costs are disk space for people's archives, instances for people's use, and bandwidth for the fetches and crawls and access. How can you pay for this if it's free? It's unreliable unless its finan
62.
Show HN: UTF8Str.js – Unicode-Aware JavaScript Strings(npmjs.com)
3 points by 19eightyfour 9y ago|0 comments
63.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Yeah i got a chuckle out of it when i crashed my console session.
64.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
"Owned." Heh.
65.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Which one of these would be cheating? [...{[Symbol.iterator](){return {next(){ return {done:console.log(1)}}}}}]; JSON.parse("[]",()=>console.log(1))
66.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
This is neat. I think there's a way around it tho. What if you can division the futures high entropy states into k, lower entropy states, and subdivide those, and so on. Substructure. Information about some of those substates can flow
67.
Show HN: Mini 32-bit tifuhash for strings, numbers, floats(gist.github.com)
1 points by 19eightyfour 9y ago|0 comments
68.
Ask HN: What did you undervalue when younger?
5 points by 19eightyfour 9y ago|1 comments
69.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on.
70.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Do you have some references on this original use of the word? I had no idea. I'm a post 1980 baby after all.
71.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I get that. And I think your ideas are useful, but to me they're not the whole picture. I've explained how I think about things below. Caution: you'll probably find those views too extreme for your taste. I'm fine with t
72.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I've read back over this and some of your other comments in other threads. You have some well thought out opinions, but I'm just of a different mindset. You're probably too clever for me to be able to argue with. But that doe
73.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I don't believe in encryption as a tool that can give any real asymmetry to an individual or conspiracy against the State. I get that you do believe it can. Another point is -- all governments monitor communications and we don't c
74.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
It seems like there is a lot to process in what you are saying. It will probably take me a while to digest it and respond, if I respond. Thanks!
75.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I certainly agree with the notion that the current iteration of "tech kings" and their minions are not so ideally adapted to the role of "social guardians" that has been thrust upon them. But...maybe it's like havin
76.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Agree with that too. Maybe IQ is out of date? Also, the huge effect that all these new technologies must be having is surely not going to be factored into that.
77.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I agree. People are also arrogant. We like to look back and think "how quaint" and we are better than them. It's humbling to think that we actually weren't. But it's probably not very adaptive to think that way. Sin
78.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I haven't thought much about this....But my first reaction is -- can we at least test it to see what happens? I have something that might not be that relevant. Consider China's control of conversations on Weibo as a microcosm of &
79.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Okay, but that's unfairly ( to police States ) correlating lack of economic development with with increased State power. A more realistic comparison is: would you rather live in London, or Hong Kong ( or even better, Singapore )? ( ter
80.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Oh, so you're saying the speaker was saying " some terrorism as opposed to the curtailing of freedoms that would come from eliminating" [1] is preferable ? I completely took it to mean: "I would prefer to live in the Isl
81.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
The idea is to reinforce the fact that: - only the State has a monopoly on violence, so State violence is legal - terrorist violence is illegal Perhaps it would be clearer to say, the always-illegal terrorist violence...but that seems like
82.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
I probably added one too many negations. I confused myself when writing it! let me see if I can work it out.
83.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
One criticism I have of this policy doc is this quote from the "Counterspeech" section. > But counterspeech is only effective if it comes from credible speakers. No it isn't. It's also effective if the background nois
84.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Do you believe the propagation of narratives that try to justify illegal terrorist violence help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. And following from that basis, suppressing and/or countering such narratives is correct.
85.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are say
86.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Don't panic. This is unlikely. IF FB goes in China, yes it will partner with censors. But why would FB permit flagrant abuse of its anti-terror policies for censorship? Doesn't make sense. It already has other mechanisms to censor
87.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
That is weird, right? Where did the precise use of broken and unbroken lines, in all the combinations necessary to represent binary 0 to 63 originate? It's a compact representation to label 64 different things using 6 "sticks&quot
88.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
Maybe because by the time hands were closed into fists, people had forgotten about the negotiating and gotten down to fighting. In other words, the "fist" symbol was a reserved word for a very different purpose than counting. Or p
89.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
It's not that there's anything wrong with the technology. It's just that people can be exploited. And they get exploited. So the hierarchical power structures remain in place. Seriously, what better dream to plant in the slav
90.
by 19eightyfour 9y ago
But wouldn't it be in the interests of mass surveillance to herd people toward a chat option that isn't secure, or that the surveillants have a backdoor to? You get two benefits: 1) chat people think is secret you can read, 2) peo

More ›