baddox

12 ms·

91.
by baddox 6y ago
But you aren't concluding, because people disagree on precisely what qualifies as "murder," that there should be no laws against murder. That is the argument proposed in the earlier comment about why there should not be laws
92.
by baddox 6y ago
No, I'm not mixing them up. I'm asking questions about them to try to understand people's viewpoints.
93.
by baddox 6y ago
Not all of the examples I gave were illegal content.
94.
by baddox 6y ago
> It's not hyperbolic at all, or have you not seen the "Silence is Violence" rhetoric everywhere? It could literally come from Orwell's world of "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" I’m
95.
by baddox 6y ago
Do you consider is censorship if a huge Internet/media company removes illegal content like child pornography, explicit calls to "imminent lawless action," phishing/fraud attempts, explicit misinformation (like false cla
96.
by baddox 6y ago
There have always been limitations on freedom of speech, including speech that incites violence. So your example, while deliberately hyperbolic (I don't think anyone would say that words literally murder people), has always been a norm
97.
by baddox 6y ago
You explain in detail what it would take to compete with Apple, but you’re trying to make the point that this is impossible to do, when in fact many smartphone manufacturers have done precisely that. Apple has a very small global market sha
98.
by baddox 6y ago
The ads you buy on the Facebook app aren’t ads that you then get to see in your Facebook feed. You’re paying to have your own products/services advertised to other people.
99.
by baddox 6y ago
Why do you think this is arbitrary? It makes a lot of sense and is pretty obvious when you look across all apps. This tweet is trying to point out a "gotcha" when there is absolutely nothing inconsistent, unreasonable, or shocking
100.
by baddox 6y ago
No one is "buying personalized ads" as an in-app purchase.
101.
by baddox 6y ago
> the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. It's actually a little sillier even than that. Epic in fact want to have their own app store (the Epic Games Store) on iOS, and thus exercise the p
102.
by baddox 6y ago
As far as I can tell, Apple was never going to ban games built on Unreal Engine. Epic made it sound very dramatic, but it seems like that was nothing more than Apple terminating Epic's developer account (for ongoing deliberate violatio
103.
by baddox 6y ago
> less revenue will necessarily lead to fewer "free" apps and/or fewer "free" features and/or worse quality I agree with "fewer" and strongly disagree with "worse quality."
104.
by baddox 6y ago
Yes, there was one family of jailbreaks that worked like that, but you'd still need to hear about that and have some reason to want to do it to your phone, and I suspect a very small portion of iPhone owners did that. It would be a lot
105.
by baddox 6y ago
Most of them probably did, because it was generally difficult to jailbreak the phone and there wasn't much reason to do so unless you were a hobbyist. App piracy was definitely a thing though, and I bet there were some people who did i
106.
by baddox 6y ago
I suspect a large portion of Apple’s users value the fact that they can’t break their phone by accidentally installing the wrong app or clicking the wrong button. To them it might not be clear what they’re getting from this no-rules App S
107.
by baddox 6y ago
> Rule of thumb: the more steps you get away from the primary source the more corrupted everything gets. The article is good. The press release is bad. The tweet about the press release is worse. The tweets dunking on the tweet about the
108.
by baddox 6y ago
> The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wi
109.
by baddox 6y ago
If you knew exactly where the plane is headed then, yeah, the drones might work.
110.
by baddox 6y ago
Just thinking out loud here, but how long would this level of having no “major” wars have to last for it to have been worth it if it ends in nuclear war?
111.
by baddox 6y ago
The first example about hospital capacity really just involves tradeoffs around your specific goals, whereas it only makes sense to talk rigorously about efficiency in the context of some specific output goal . So if you fix some goal, say
112.
by baddox 6y ago
> First the interviewer went off on a tangent claiming that they’re not evil (unsolicited) They're a big data company that works mostly with governments and militaries, and they're named after evil (and unreliable!) magical spy
113.
by baddox 6y ago
> Because it's the part that people should own after they bought it. Why? Is that just an arbitrary principle? Why should "hardware" be something we have absolute control over, but "software" is not? > You can
114.
by baddox 6y ago
It's common in computer graphics and user interface programming. You want to move your character around a 2D grid, but you don't want either of its x and y coordinates to ever move outside the bounds of the 2D grid. Or you want a
115.
by baddox 6y ago
I think the reason it's weird is that we might intuitively think of the "enforce a lower bound" function as taking two named arguments (lowerBound and inputValue) and the order of those two arguments mattering . But of cours
116.
by baddox 6y ago
> The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its
117.
by baddox 6y ago
I'm not seeing the distinction. Why is hardware relevant? If Epic sold a "Fortnite tablet" would this somehow change the legality of Epic's monopoly on selling digital items in Fortnite?
118.
by baddox 6y ago
> In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're spending lots of effort making what appear to be good-faith argument
119.
by baddox 6y ago
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down." There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the func
120.
by baddox 6y ago
If it poses a threat of major antitrust action, then perhaps their fiduciary duty would be to shut down the app stores.

More ›