Dan_Sylveste

8 ms·

31.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
I've not encountered a non-white LED that was even vaguely visible through a layer of black electrical tape, and there's always room for a second layer.
32.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Read the citation [N 1] and you'll figure it out pdq
33.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Yes, and it's restricted in the case of providers of infrastructure deemed essential to the operation of a civil society. Electricity and landline providers can't decline to serve either the KKK or the Black Panthers. Twitter, bei
34.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Without knowing which 'particular situation' you're talking about, I can just save your confusion. There are articles in Wikipedia which will _always_ convey a certain perspective. Edits to them will always be reverted. The r
35.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
It's as popular as it's ever been.
36.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Making telcos carry your speech is, thanks to common carrier legislation. I hope we can see the expansion of this legislation soon to cover the modern ways in which people communicate and the modern town square.
37.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> That's been part of why I've been so surprised by the reactions of people to the changes. Most of the changes have at worst had no impact on my experience. There's a big big narrative being pushed by people who, for one
38.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
That's weird, because I'm seeing as much activity, engagement and interaction as I've always seen. There are a lot fewer insane takes being posted by accounts that may or may not be bots, but I'm not really missing that
39.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralis
40.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other pe
41.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> Is it not clear why that makes the latter entity less sympathetic and more likely to lose? Yes, but that entity is clearly violating the law and is archiving material that is already (by definition) archived by somebody, just not publi
42.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Also government usage of social media aids the flow of misinformation, by blending info from trusted providers (the govt, in theory, lol) with info from untrusted providers. There's a reason the .gov domain exists.
43.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> transmission losses are under 10% in modern grids Modern grids are designed to keep those losses down. If the losses weren't a factor the grids would be designed differently. Very differently. As in, North Africa would be so full
44.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
Magnetic monopoles would be nice
45.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
The thought did cross my mind that being destroyed by lawsuits might actually be their objective...
46.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> Which would make them less sympathetic You think them saying 'we understand that the web archive is a valuable resource of data which isn't under legal attack, and to best serve the needs of the public we'll ring-fence t
47.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
If they are going to continue this weird strategy of tanking lawsuits that any competent counsel would advise they're going to lose, they should split off the more-irreplaceable and more frequently used part of the archive (that is, th
48.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> That's a cat they can't put back in the bag either Trivial fix here - split off the non-contentious archiving (the web archive / wayback machine) into a separate legal entity from the contentious archiving. That preserve
49.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
It would seem prudent for them to partition their business into two separate entities - one which handles non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine, etc) and another one which handles the stuff which seems to attract repeated lawsuits.
50.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> be the ones to push the limits of laws like this I can think of a much more prudent way to do that, namely, by legally segregating their non-contentious archiving (the wayback machine et al) from their legally contentious archiving suc
51.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
> suggests that BYU asserts the opposite The page you've linked says: "Copyright protection is effectively never lost, unless explicitly given away or the copyright has expired. However, if you do not actively defend your copyr
52.
by Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
There's nothing unapproachable about a 100% static site with some server-rendered navigation elements, much like livejournal was in the early 2000s. Much like HN is today. Perfectly 'approachable' even on mobile devices. The
53.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
Why the hell would you announce that you've virus-scanned an executable that _your own company_ has produced?
54.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>tips Barstaff don't get tips in the UK It's more likely that on quiet nights/days it's simply not cost effective to open. During a weekday a small pub might literally have one or two customers. They're tradition
55.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
Almost never applies to 100% of a work.
56.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
You wrote: >Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people? Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear. If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase o
57.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>My unspoken contention was that eventually, we move to a world where k8s-like infra is the de facto norm for 99% of infrastructure out there, and on that road we move to the "no" side of the initial question for e.g. web agenc
58.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
You're confused. They're not calling the addicts undesirables.
59.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
I can't share a screenshot of the statistics due to copyright restrictions, but I can confirm that what user JumpCrisscross said (about the statistics) is true.
60.
by Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>That's another straw man fallacy. My opinion is that a lot of people think murderers are less than human, full stop. I don't know how my opinion can coherently be described as a fallacy when it's what I believe.

More ›