Mirioron

37 ms·

331.
by Mirioron 6y ago
> It literally is, by definition. Any business success has to happen within the legal context it exists in. Yes, and they had business success until the rules were changed from under them. > I could reword this as "the elected r
332.
by Mirioron 6y ago
> This doesn't seem to significantly impact me or anyone in my network. If this was a big problem we'd notice it and/or a EU-based, compliant competitor will step in to fill the void. Access to fewer news sites is access
333.
by Mirioron 6y ago
A business model that fails because you explicitly make them illegal isn't exactly a failed business model. The lawmakers made them fail and they either knew it was going to happen or were incompetent.
334.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Maybe all these websites are simply taking the EU Parliament's site as an example on how you should do it? They made the regulation, surely you should follow their example.
335.
by Mirioron 6y ago
But then it's much more apparent that you are in breach. If you pretend to care then the chance of being caught is much lower.
336.
by Mirioron 6y ago
The issue is the collateral damage. The EU doesn't have a thriving web/tech sector to begin with when compared to the US or China. These kinds of things likely make it worse.
337.
by Mirioron 6y ago
I think the reason why these situations boil down to "for-or-against" is because people craft narratives about these measures/changes to law. If the narratives are pushed hard enough then they end up overpowering nuanced disc
338.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Since we're talking about ideas for news services: I would love to be able to get a list of the most important news in a month or a year. Not a top 10 list but simply a way to try to catch up if you miss a few months.
339.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Oh, that is entirely possible! Even worse is that in the future there's a chance video encoding will become complex enough that it'll be difficult to reverse engineer. If the algorithms get lost to time then even if you have the v
340.
by Mirioron 6y ago
I hear you! Combining your results with the scientists' we can only conclude that the Ancient Egyptians had some technology available to them that has been lost to time. Even modern cranes can't do that. Therefore the only other o
341.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Nowadays we have video which can cover a large part of things that can't be written down. It doesn't cover all of it though, but it can get pretty close.
342.
by Mirioron 6y ago
This is an example of institutional knowledge. It's part of the reason why you want to have some military production even if you have enough gear already. You might need people with this kind of expertise in the future.
343.
by Mirioron 6y ago
It does underline the point though. A law had to be made almost 25 years ago to prevent this with food and people are still worried. Doesn't paint a rosy picture for everything else.
344.
by Mirioron 6y ago
> If it could work, please, anyone who reads this comment: Many of us are programmers here, propose a rule that doesn't fall apart. Legislation has an easy out here: "you'll know it when you see it." Courts would dec
345.
by Mirioron 6y ago
They would pick c. All the legislators have to do is set a minimum size and certain exceptions on what can be removed, eg above 100 million users and remove off-topic and spam. HN and 99% of websites would be unaffected, but Twitter, Facebo
346.
by Mirioron 6y ago
This actually happened to a news site in Estonia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_AS_v._Estonia There was a later ruling in Hungary that seemed to go the other way though: https://globalfreedomofexpressi
347.
by Mirioron 6y ago
> No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. Would you make this same argument when it comes to privacy? Technically it's your computer sending your data t
348.
by Mirioron 6y ago
They were probably waiting for one of the social media platforms to screw up somehow.
349.
by Mirioron 6y ago
The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. If a user on Twitter does it then Twitter doesn't bear th
350.
by Mirioron 6y ago
You can twist the Constitution in both directions. You could say that the value of free speech is so important to society that it is codified on the Constitution. These companies that become big enough platforms should respect that value. Y
351.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Why would that cause instant censoring? It could go the other way too. Content doesn't get censored. No more games by websites like Twitter where they "accidentally" censor one political side over and over. (Or vice versa els
352.
by Mirioron 6y ago
I think the idea is that Twitter should either moderate the content and be (partly) responsible for it, or it should not moderate the content and not be (partly) responsible for it.
353.
by Mirioron 6y ago
How does it compare to Wolfram Alpha in your opinion?
354.
by Mirioron 6y ago
The AMP site is unusable far more often than not. My phone has had a 100 Mbps connection for years, yet opening webpages is slow because I need to manually mess with the page so that I can get a working webpage. I'll take +250 ms load
355.
by Mirioron 6y ago
AMP is the number one reason for my usage of "load the desktop site" toggle on my phone.
356.
by Mirioron 6y ago
What baffles me is that the Games From Scratch YouTube channel has likely generated over $15,000 in revenue for YouTube. Is it really so difficult for them to have a human that the youtuber could turn to?
357.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Did you remember any of the stories after the one you remembered in detail? Because if you do then maybe it took your associative memory a while to match the pattern.
358.
by Mirioron 6y ago
The Wikipedia community is unwelcoming and initiatives like this are part of the reason. That's because these initiatives for "inclusion" are quite often used for something superficial or as a convenient cudgel to hit someone
359.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Sure, and if you don't do that then you'll be forced to build that bomb instead of having a choice. You have to be able to defend yourself. If you can't then somebody that's worse than you is going to come along and make
360.
by Mirioron 6y ago
Sadly, when you have rules in society you will get people who will try to enforce those rules just because they are the rules. In some sense it is logical - this will get bad rules changed quicker, but in another sense it just causes harm t

More ›