c0pium

15 ms·

181.
by c0pium 3y ago
You’d lose that bet handily. People like Apple because of the curation and the ecosystem. A mainstream complaint about Apple is not that they place restrictions, but rather that they let too much low-quality stuff in.
182.
by c0pium 3y ago
That is very much not how the atmosphere works. The jet stream as one example moves over the US at hundreds of miles per hour, and more generally speaking gases disperse through the atmosphere very quickly.
183.
by c0pium 3y ago
Nope, genuinely impossible. All of the emphasis, parentheticals, and footnotes are indicative of a stream of consciousness writing style which is hard enough follow when well edited after. When coupled with a total lack of editing it become
184.
by c0pium 3y ago
HN needs to put a hard limit on the number of phrases in a post which can use the annoying emphasis markup. I vote for 0, but would accept as many as 2. There’s so much text emphasized in this post that it’s impossible to read.
185.
by c0pium 3y ago
The paper provides the exact mass of water used, however nobody has a kitchen scale measuring to those tolerances.
186.
by c0pium 3y ago
The method in this paper is different than most existing RDT applications since achieving the best results requires much more water than anyone was previously suggesting. The heuristic that James Hoffman has espoused is 3-4 spritzes of wate
187.
by c0pium 3y ago
It also bears pointing out that the amount of water needed to achieve these anti-clumping effects is probably twice what people are using following existing RDT (water spraying) methods.
188.
by c0pium 3y ago
Reversions are a common clause in leases, which nobody would call ownership. It’s certainly the case that the word could be viewed to have a confusing meaning if it’s misused in situations where it obviously doesn’t apply. You can own a par
189.
by c0pium 3y ago
This is a really great example of trying to use outrage to distract from the fact that you’re not addressing the point you’re allegedly replying to. You got stuck because you didn’t understand the implications of the original hot take you h
190.
by c0pium 3y ago
All of which, as I said, provide an enforceable claim against those things.
191.
by c0pium 3y ago
Please, please let me know before you fly next. I cannot wait to hear you explain to the gate agent that you purchased a ticket so legally the plane is now yours.
192.
by c0pium 3y ago
Your comment isn’t responsive to what I wrote. I was making a very narrow point responding to the phrase “Legally you can make personal backups…” by pointing out that you frequently cannot legally make those backups. Whether it’s possible a
193.
by c0pium 3y ago
That’s not muddy at all. You presented cases where one owns something and cases where one owns a license to use a thing and seem surprised that they’re different. You think it’s muddy because you want owning a license to mean owning the thi
194.
by c0pium 3y ago
You could say that about literally anything by just refusing to accept the actual definition, though. One person not accepting that the word means what it means doesn’t mean that the word is unspecific.
195.
by c0pium 3y ago
You should be careful with that advice, as virtually all media that you might want to backup contains drm, and there is no exemption to the DMCA for bypassing drm for personal or archival (unless you’re a museum) use. There are such exempti
196.
by c0pium 3y ago
> I think Playstation is doing the muddying You are certainly welcome to your opinion. This is how the industry has worked for decades at this point though, so it’s hard to argue that the people doing the standard thing with the standard
197.
by c0pium 3y ago
> Is it still piracy? Yes. > I have a license for it. The “it” for which you have a license is not the media you torrented. It’s the version you access from the licensor via the licensed mechanism. These kind of faux-legal arguments a
198.
by c0pium 3y ago
The text on the button on their site was “purchase” as of a few years ago (it’s now “reserve”). Also, the apartment analogy is a good one. There are a lot of clauses in apartment leases which can get your lease revoked. In no case would it
199.
by c0pium 3y ago
I mean, yes. You are not allowed to circumvent the terms of the license. Why would you think that you would be able to do that? Do you make archival copies of keys to AirBnBs so you can retain access to the purchased room after the access w
200.
by c0pium 3y ago
No, my point is about whether ownership has a clear definition or not. It does. This is separate from whether or not we like the way the system works for licensing content, and it’s important that people not muddy the waters here.
201.
by c0pium 3y ago
Purchasing a license is not the same as purchasing the thing, and everyone knows that. It’s not 1997 anymore. Whether they have an enforceable claim to access the content depends on the terms of their license, and while I haven’t read it I
202.
by c0pium 3y ago
Sure sure, we can grant them their fig leaf. Note however that the same logic applies to their “Linux ISOs”. Possession does not imply ownership. Edit: there’s no need to give these reminders, btw. Everyone knows that torrents have theoreti
203.
by c0pium 3y ago
Ownership isn’t fuzzy though, it has a clear definition. The problem is that clear definition makes pirates angry because they want it to mean something other than what it does, so they try to make the situation cloudy. If you have an enfor
204.
by c0pium 3y ago
> If you download something from a torrent, that's digital ownership too No, that’s possession. That’s why they call it piracy; you have it but you definitely don’t own it.
205.
by c0pium 3y ago
Or applying for a job, or surveying local businesses for a story, or transposed the numbers, or… It can simultaneously be true that metadata contains less information than real data and that metadata is still dangerous. But when one is know
206.
by c0pium 3y ago
> This is not a niche interpretation of what it means to watch a video You should be aware that is very much up for debate. I have seen lots of market research on words around AI, and there is a large group of people who think that it is
207.
by c0pium 3y ago
You’re thinking about this backwards. These are streamers with nothing to offer trying to hit the virality lottery. 15k viewers is more than enough for that spark to catch. Also, if you sub to a brand channel finding small streamers is a bi
208.
by c0pium 3y ago
As we’ve learned very clearly over the last 20 years of commercialization of spam, that never works. The only tractable way to fight fraud and abuse is to impose cost.
209.
by c0pium 3y ago
> you can't just change definitions like this Of course you can, don’t be obtuse. Words can literally mean anything the speaker wants them to, language evolves. This whole conversation is weird and unhinged. We’re talking about stre
210.
by c0pium 3y ago
Since it seems like you don’t understand how streaming on twitch works, here’s the tl;dr. They’re paying you in exposure for giving them exposure. This is one of the few places where “for the exposure” is actually meaningful and not a meme.

More ›