ben0x539

59 ms·

691.
by ben0x539 10y ago
> Linus et al. invented git specifically to remove BitKeeper's proprietary sword of damocles from hanging over the kernel. Didn't he invent it after the sword had fallen and the BitKeeper people withdrew their permission to use
692.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Isn't that an invalid assumption that Amazon would do nothing else differently if they didn't have AWS?
693.
by ben0x539 10y ago
This is my favorite bit long-S trivia: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sun%2Cfun&year...
694.
by ben0x539 10y ago
The name (or title) drop might effect appropriate urgency, seems legit. Edit: Don't downvote people trying to help me improve my english. :(
695.
by ben0x539 10y ago
There's lots of injustices. I'm by necessity disregarding almost all of them. I'm not a court. When choosing how to allocate my capacity for moral outrage, it's perfectly valid to give preference to people who are not ac
696.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I don't think terseness helps much here, isn't the actual error message gonna dwarf the name of the method it's passed to in almost all scenarios?
697.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Libraries for shell scripts are made from executables!
698.
by ben0x539 10y ago
To be clear, `extern crate foo` refers to the compilation artifact, not the source of foo.
699.
by ben0x539 10y ago
`mod` makes things part of the current project, `extern crate` is for referencing other projects. The former is way tighter, bidirectional coupling, you won't have to deal with different versions of single source files in the same comp
700.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I keep tripping over that as well. It makes the crate root feel special compared to other modules, and that's annoying because most people learning the language probably spend a lot of time in the crate root, writing simple toy program
701.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Well, or some Erlang users, I guess, fine
702.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Some Go users can probably make the argument that their one Go application is the single process using appreciable amounts of CPU time on their systems.
703.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I don't think it's comparable, a DDoS attack is aimed at taking down a whole site, or otherwise making it inaccessible. Here the system keeps working as intended and the other side just has to deal with how the intentions turn out
704.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Is this analysis independent on whether I'm the party who gets paid for the ad clicks? It makes sense to me that if I make someone sign a thing saying I get money per click, and then go ahead and simulate clicks, I'm defrauding th
705.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I suspect the comment is a frustrated response to American courts declaring that all kinds of weird things are somehow protected as "speech", not an unironic endorsement of the practice.
706.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Fundamentally I feel like sabotage involves something like me going to someone's place and destroying their equipment like in your original analogy, also I'm probably being really sneaky about it. Naturally there's a legal an
707.
by ben0x539 10y ago
If the FSF thought that minimizing drama was a priority, they could have accepted that the maintainer wanted to take libreboot out of the GNU project without prolonging the whole thing. Like, basically this submission, but a couple of month
708.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for the drama at her feet. The FSF could have handled this more professionally from the beginning.
709.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Seems like a good call by rms to drop the matter instead of insisting on a permanent feud over a project that GNU is apparently not very interested in.
710.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I'm not sure I am a fan of the analogy, but either way, I think we've moved away from calling it fraud so I'll accept that.
711.
by ben0x539 10y ago
I don't think you can reasonably frame clicking on too many ads as an act of sabotage. It's interfering with the metrics that some people who you don't necessarily have a business relationship use to make business decisions (
712.
by ben0x539 10y ago
The user invited me into their house/onto their device though, so I think we can do better on the analogy front.
713.
by ben0x539 10y ago
In general I'm okay with websites saying, "hey, if you block our ads, we don't want you using our site". I think only a few big sites are doing that so far, typically it's not the kind of site that I'd be sad o
714.
by ben0x539 10y ago
If you're blacklisted as a bot, does Google stop serving you ads? :P
715.
by ben0x539 10y ago
If you're not browsing youtube with the extension enabled, I'd expect that Google refrains from using that completely unrelated customer relationship to fuck you over for using an extension they don't like. It's like if
716.
by ben0x539 10y ago
It's precisely only messing with metrics, it just so happens that one of the metrics happens to be the one you agreed to use as basis for your payments. ;)
717.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Someone clicking an ad is not a) making an order or b) pretending to be someone else, which seem kinda instrumental for the fraud in your analogy. The ad didn't get served with a ToS document explaining that by clicking it, you enter i
718.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Seems like there's room for an arms race here, where you tune the extension to only click on some ads, and ultimately approximate legit user behavior as Google keeps cracking down.
719.
by ben0x539 10y ago
Who is the user defrauding? If they're not the site running the ads, they have no business relationship with the ad company, so the ad company really can't reasonably demand of them to only click certain ads.
720.
by ben0x539 10y ago
A lot of things costing a company money are perfectly reasonable and we rightly complain if a company sabotages them. Things like leaving negative reviews/ratings, receiving refunds for defective products or shopping around to compare

More ›