cooper12

60 ms·

541.
by cooper12 10y ago
That's what Shumway [0] was supposed to be, but according to another comment, it's been added to the Firefox graveyard unfortunately. [1] [0]: http://mozilla.github.io/shumway/ [1]: https://bugzill
542.
by cooper12 10y ago
> Both CC and open-source software use the framework of existing copyright law to guarantee a "fair" use of works, with only few restrictions. Not without any restrictions. You said it much better than I ever could :). And that
543.
by cooper12 10y ago
The issue here was with attribution, which the license explicitly requires. Public domain doesn't require that so it wouldn't have come into play here. The reason they had to be "controlling and litigious" is so that the
544.
by cooper12 10y ago
That's not possible by definition since these are minority groups. The minorities and their views will always be outnumbered by the majority. Heck, Consider this: 8.5% of Wikipedia editors are women. ( https://en.wikipedia.or
545.
by cooper12 10y ago
Do people just knee-jerk react to stories here after reading the title only? The "self-case activism" she talks about is adding wikilinks, adding info she just researched, and expanding a Wikipedia article. The only political thin
546.
by cooper12 10y ago
While the video is now back up, this is a prime example of why net neutrality and avoiding digital silos is so important. Facebook gets to be the arbitrator of what we see, effectively creating a filter bubble, and since its motives don&#x2
547.
by cooper12 10y ago
You're doing no better by trivializing the author's purview. He doesn't live anywhere else you mentioned, he lives in China and in Tibet before that. That is the world he inhabits and that his writing reflects. Not to mention
548.
by cooper12 10y ago
Umm no you can't. Hacker News comments are not considered reliable sources [0] because they are self-published [1]. The only exceptions would be if the subject of the article is talking about themselves, or if the commenter is an estab
549.
by cooper12 10y ago
It's called the hivemind; people form a collective intelligence instead of independent narratives. This is partially the fault of news, which is quite opinionated these days, and also our willingness to take these reports at face value
550.
by cooper12 10y ago
Whoops, you're right. Looks like I misread the relevant passage: > The German court dismissed the case against Wikimedia Deutschland on the grounds that it was not legally responsible for the files in question, which were held by Wi
551.
by cooper12 10y ago
The stupid part about this is that this ruling will only affect stuff hosted on German servers, so only dewiki will be affected. Even then, someone will likely go in and sneak a few pictures that are "good enough" for Wikipedia pu
552.
by cooper12 10y ago
Simple, allow new copyrights on derivative works. Except wait, that's how it already is in America. I'm fine with them redesigning Mickey Mouse for new works. However, it's not cool for them to keep the public domain locked u
553.
by cooper12 10y ago
I feel a similar struggle on Wikipedia where I have to revert a ton of good-faith edits. The editors think they're improving the article, but it always falls afoul of being original research or trivia. I'd hate to discourage poten
554.
by cooper12 10y ago
You just pointed out the biggest limitation with this. Even if it can apply the style, that's all it is doing. It doesn't understand the context or content of the film. Everyone knows in the first fifteen minutes of the film of th
555.
by cooper12 10y ago
I don't know if you know this, but every article has a history of changes. Admins look at the diffs of these changes and can see exactly what was added or removed. And about edit-warring and BLP violations, again, the best way to resol
556.
by cooper12 10y ago
Yes, the burden to provide citations to add it back rests on the person who wants to reinstate challenged information. This helps to tend towards an article that has more cited content over time as anything questionable only gets reinserted
557.
by cooper12 10y ago
Wikipedia is written by amateurs and enthusiasts, credentials don't hold any weight compared to published sources. [0] You can't verify what's in someone's head, but you can do that for published information. Every now a
558.
by cooper12 10y ago
Then you have the opposite problem: anyone can add spam and hoaxes with impunity because it takes more effort to remove than add. Then in response you add the same rule for adding information. Voila, you just recreated Wikipedia except you
559.
by cooper12 10y ago
I think its a naive view to expect two or more people to work on something without conflicts. How do these get solved in real life? Do people just keep pushing and pulling until one side cedes? Perhaps, but the more effective and optimal so
560.
by cooper12 10y ago
Because as you saw here, everyone just went with the heavy metal comments. It's self-perpetuating because they see other comments like that and it validates that they are appropriate. Ideally there could have been one comment thread on
561.
by cooper12 10y ago
Well if you look at the actual comments they're completely off-topic and talking about heavy metal music, nothing to do with steel.
562.
by cooper12 10y ago
Wow it's astounding how much work can go into processing an image. I think he brings up an interesting point when he says he was interested in telling a story rather than depicting reality. Makes one think twice about all those beautif
563.
by cooper12 10y ago
Skepticism is healthy. It's quite common for mainstream media to distill a study with tons of caveats and situational results to clickbait like "drinking alcohol means you'll live longer". Not to mention we shouldn'
564.
by cooper12 10y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679506 .
565.
by cooper12 10y ago
These are all HN users. If the accounts were new, the usernames would be green. It's just that certain types of content and titles bring out a certain class of responses.
566.
by cooper12 10y ago
Hmm that's a fair point even if it's in a different context since ideally each symbol would retain its own meaning. I'm not sure what a better icon would be then that would be intuitive unless one was decided upon and widely
567.
by cooper12 10y ago
PLOS uses this logo for open access: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLo... . (an open lock) Based on that Wikipedia uses a closed lock to indicate paywalled sources: https://commons.
568.
by cooper12 10y ago
"Your skepticism prevented me from providing evidence to allay those concerns".
569.
by cooper12 10y ago
Hey, don't sell yourself short. It's akin to using your finger while reading a book. It helps you to keep your place and focus, which the highlighting in browsers works even better for. So I wouldn't necessarily call it a qui
570.
by cooper12 10y ago
What's an SJW?

More ›