antisol

25 ms·

271.
by antisol 5y ago
Are you even allowed to post ads on HN? The poster's HN account is all of 7 hours old. Looks to me like they signed up to HN just to post ads.
272.
by antisol 5y ago
I might have read this article. The only thing stopping me was: blockquote { margin-left: -10%; }
273.
by antisol 5y ago
I think you're confused. Why would I come after you for that?
274.
by antisol 5y ago
>how is this bliss? Lol, someone has never dealt with a Mac user before. I'm pretty sure Apple's slogan is and always has been "ignorance is bliss".
275.
by antisol 5y ago
Delusional for being unable to detect clear and obvious threats. Though let's be fair, we both know you're not delusional. You're just an employee.
276.
by antisol 5y ago
oh, did I not mention that I'm sending an X-send-401-if-use-is-unauthorised-and-also-please-note-that-by-responding-to-this-http-request-you-agree-to-my-eula header in my request? Yeah, sorry, looks like I did forget to mention that. I
277.
by antisol 5y ago
You are exactly right. And you make the point so clearly and calmly. Thanks! :)
278.
by antisol 5y ago
Pretty sure the grounds were "the troll factory muse group has hired finds this fact inconvenient"
279.
by antisol 5y ago
yeah that would make sense, they are very obviously buying articles on Ars Technica.
280.
by antisol 5y ago
I really don't understand why your comments keep getting flagged. Bizarre.
281.
by antisol 5y ago
Thanks for the constructive feedback. I was emotional as I found the accusation deeply offensive. I'll try to edit the response and to not do that in future. Thank you for being even-handed in your application of the rules and acknowle
282.
by antisol 5y ago
Oh nevermind, I figured out the answer to my question: If the server responds with a 401 code, it's unauthorised. It's right there in the spec. Duh.
283.
by antisol 5y ago
Aah. And how do they specify which access is authorised/unauthorised in their HTTP responses? How can we determine programmatically which use is unauthorised?
284.
by antisol 5y ago
What "worst possible interpretation"? You were the one who claimed you didn't realise you had switched from safari to the finder. Which is exactly equivalent to saying "I have no clue what I'm looking at and pay zer
285.
by antisol 5y ago
what unauthorised use?
286.
by antisol 5y ago
depends on whether he's also selling legal windows at an inflated price and then called the cops when you didn't bite. But probably, yes.
287.
by antisol 5y ago
Um. Wow. That's bold. ...Surely you mean " ALLEGED illegal and possibly criminal activity". ...And surely you mean " ALLEGED undeniably illegal activity" ...right?
288.
by antisol 5y ago
You are very clearly either totally fucking delusional, or a muse employee.
289.
by antisol 5y ago
Yes, exactly! And then when you don't buy his new windows, he calls the cops and tells them to be on the lookout for your silver bmw with illegal tinted windows. So, @hannasanarion, what's your job title as muse? Given your posts,
290.
by antisol 5y ago
I'm tired. Take the copypasta and lack of patience with a grain of salt and humour, please? :) >if you want to work towards any resolution you must always assume good faith, otherwise why even bother talking to them. I've co
291.
by antisol 5y ago
You said that it's a waste of time to argue what IQ score qualifies as "Idiot". There is a clear and concrete answer to that question, because the word "idiot" has a medical definition. Yes, you were correct in your
292.
by antisol 5y ago
>Nobody is assuming anything. "The person submitting this link to HN posted a snarky rhetorical question" is an assumption, and one that I can state categorically and with 100% confidence is incorrect. >You have presented it
293.
by antisol 5y ago
>Who would argue what does and doesn't qualify for a random pejorative? Some morals are fairly universal. For instance, there aren't many people who would argue that (unprovoked) murder is ethical. I believe that this is a pret
294.
by antisol 5y ago
Whoa... I missed this earlier. >I didn't even notice that I'd been moved to Finder at first. You... can't tell finder from a web browser ?? There goes 100% of your credibility with regard to UX.
295.
by antisol 5y ago
That's.......... actually not a bad answer to my question, goddamnit ;) BUT: you do have to concede that it's not a technical reason. It boils down to "Adobe are goddamn useless, let's just do their job for them because
296.
by antisol 5y ago
>they don’t owe anyone anything unrestricted access to the software. One could make an argument that preventing a user from forking violates the GPL under which the software is licensed.
297.
by antisol 5y ago
look deeper
298.
by antisol 5y ago
...so you're not planning on arguing that their behaviour doesn't make them scumbags, then?
299.
by antisol 5y ago
I guess it depends on your perspective. For example, if you work for musescore... ;)
300.
by antisol 5y ago
> and they themselves don't You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. > name calling There's no name calling in there, only factually accurate descriptions. > you are closing the door to

More ›