akersten

48 ms·

631.
by akersten 6y ago
Well, there was a post on the front page just now linking to an executive order from November that prohibits exchange in certain securities that the government deems beneficial to the CCP, so avoiding having my investments banned by adminis
632.
by akersten 6y ago
> The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths. I insist that the fact that the patents still stand is rather an indication of the systemic failure of the court system to enforce the non-patenta
633.
by akersten 6y ago
It's incredible that the MPEG-LA mafia has gotten away with 23 patents on a system of mathematical operations. Math is explicitly outlined as non-patentable. While this extends to all software patents, I'm astounded that even th
634.
by akersten 6y ago
Police taking selfie with terrorist: https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520 Police letting terrorists in: https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1346931235176783873
635.
by akersten 6y ago
> Nobody was ever doing that. It's immaterial to me whether ISPs had gotten around to creating their a-la-carte packages yet. I want it to be impossible for them to do so. Why leave the option open? > Basically, by fighting dat
636.
by akersten 6y ago
Quite a few ISP/media conglomerate monopolies like AT&T and T-Mobile are zero-rating their own streaming services' traffic, while still counting bytes for Netflix against a pathetic mobile data cap. Anti-competitive and unfair
637.
by akersten 6y ago
The two biggest priorities should be restoring net neutrality so ISPs can't balkanize the web into "social media package, $49.99/m", "streaming package +$29.99/m" _and_ banning of data caps. During covid l
638.
by akersten 6y ago
Cheaper to keep the mitigations in place than to design around the side channel. Rearchitechting an entire CPU seems like it would be a boondoggle. Especially since the well of side channels runs infinity deep unless you're back to sin
639.
by akersten 6y ago
You don't think the nation's capitol being infiltrated in a coup attempt is an "interesting new phenomenon?"
640.
by akersten 6y ago
No sane judge would accept that that is a valid clause in a ToS.
641.
by akersten 6y ago
Thanks for the background! Pretty cool have the author here and I hope you didn't take my venting too personally ;) As a firefox user I appreciate that we were considered. Although maybe I've got a new bone to pick with Mozilla no
642.
by akersten 6y ago
I thought it was a joke too. What an awful flag all around: * Woefully ambiguous and underspecified - what is "major"? A 12 FPS drop compared to desktop? Below 30 FPS? Frame jitter outside a certain standard deviation? It will dep
643.
by akersten 6y ago
"Felony streaming." Consider the absurdity of that concept. Categorizing the re-transmission of someone else's imaginary property in the same bucket as committing murder. Looks like it's going to the Senate, poised to pa
644.
by akersten 6y ago
My read of Section 6(b) (from [0]) is that it requires the FTC to prescribe specific questions for a company to answer: > the Commission may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specif
645.
by akersten 6y ago
Frankly, the order is one step short of "copy your Shared drive to a hard disk and mail it to us, we'll take care of the rest." I'm genuinely interested in what US Code permits the FTC to ask for such a trove of company
646.
by akersten 6y ago
The 45-day thing is a minor tickle, I shouldn't have lead with it. My point is that to me it feels like this Order is a huge overreach of authority, and whether you personally do or don't feel sympathy for a certain company does n
647.
by akersten 6y ago
Here is the actual order (PDF warning): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders... I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of home
648.
by akersten 6y ago
Instead of maintaining an out of date Chrome once that change rolls around, why not switch to Firefox?
649.
by akersten 6y ago
"The browser must not provide automation features." in authentication workflows. Ok, so no password managers that auto-fill your password (like the one built-in to Chrome)? This guidance is not well-thought-out.
650.
by akersten 6y ago
This is sad. Google capitulating to this law will now give leeway for further ridiculous highway robbery, since other jurisdictions see they won't fight it. Way to throw us all under the bus, Google. Should have packed your bags and re
651.
by akersten 6y ago
Can confirm that it was down for the better part of 5 minutes, but not for some friends in the same city on a different ISP. Will be interesting to see if there's a postmortem.
652.
by akersten 6y ago
I admit I kind of glazed over when I read through the action plan/pledge etc. I just didn't see a lot of concrete steps in there that would actually make a difference. The only thing that's going to make a difference is for s
653.
by akersten 6y ago
At a minimum, Google's counsel testified under penalty of perjury in this takedown letter that they took Fair Use into consideration, so there must be at least some application here. (And if there isn't, that sure is a strange se
654.
by akersten 6y ago
How is one supposed to exercise their right to Fair Use without "bypassing" technological measures via tools like these? I think there is solid legal DMCA ground for them to remain hosted in the US, without even needing to reach
655.
by akersten 6y ago
Just for fun, I didn't literally mean that the post describing the operations would infringe the patent. It only becomes infringing when that description is expressed in a way a computer understands! Hopefully, my indignation at the ab
656.
by akersten 6y ago
Can you expand more on "Android phones don't allow WebRTC video chat to work on any browser except Chrome?" My brief research[0] would indicate that WebRTC is indeed supported on FF Mobile and has been supported since 2013[1]
657.
by akersten 6y ago
While I'm confident your reply is tongue-in-cheek, it's a sad indictment of the patent system that a half-billion-dollar "innovation" can be infringed by a few nebulous sentences on a technical forum.
658.
by akersten 6y ago
If they don't have the right to distribute their source code, then it seems an appropriate legal remedy in this hypothetical would be: * Make them open source the code anyway, and the licensors can pursue the company's estate for
659.
by akersten 6y ago
> Q: What will happen to my data? > A: Customer data will be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. So, in other words, sold to the highest bidder in every jurisdiction where possible. What an awful non-answer
660.
by akersten 6y ago
Hell, I would even set up a website with instructions and premade exhibits - give it a catchy name like sueHPinSmallClaims dotcom - and encourage everyone to use it, I'd be so indignant.

More ›