danarmak

28 ms·

211.
by danarmak 10y ago
Of course we can't force people (by law) to do business with someone, and shouldn't try. What we should do is establish strong social norms against this kind of discrimination and against this kind of net outrage mob hounding of p
212.
by danarmak 10y ago
It is true that the law in general is a very imperfect tool and standard, for all the reasons you mention and more. But I do think many specific laws are good ones. For example, various laws says it's illegal to not hire or to fire som
213.
by danarmak 10y ago
The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by th
214.
by danarmak 10y ago
Predictably, Oculus developers are now saying nothing but Luckey's resignation will satisfy them: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/some-developers-droppi... Which is tantamount to saying they don&#x
215.
by danarmak 10y ago
I favor strictly sticking to the law. The law is the explicit consensus of society on what is permissible. Everything else is personal opinion. If a person does something which is indisputably legal, in their private capacity, that should n
216.
by danarmak 10y ago
Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency opposed to that cause can successfully demand they be punished? Even when the polit
217.
by danarmak 10y ago
...Just realized this was discussed in several posts yesterday. This one from today is about Luckey's forced public apology. Don't think it adds anything to the discussion; it was obvious from the outset that an Internet outrage m
218.
by danarmak 10y ago
As a non-American, I find the recent US trend of publicly punishing high-ranking tech people for their private, legal political speech scary. (The previous example is Brandon Eich being forced to leave Mozilla.) The prospect of successful t
219.
Luckey on pro-Trump donation: “My actions… do not represent Oculus”(arstechnica.com)
3 points by danarmak 10y ago|22 comments
220.
by danarmak 10y ago
And, in fact, it's very difficult to motivate anyone to do anything in defense of anyone merely accused of viewing child porn who has not yet come to trial.
221.
by danarmak 10y ago
Is the beauty you see in C inseparable from its unsafety? Are the unsafe parts that other languages don't have the most beautiful ones? There's a big difference between arguing for safety and arguing for Rust specifically. Everyon
222.
by danarmak 10y ago
The crucial difference is between a policy, which people can not follow (and you might not catch them), and a language or compiler restriction, which people can't work around without doing something drastic like shelling out to a new p
223.
by danarmak 10y ago
Easy is not the same as necessary. At least high-security projects like OpenSSL could enforce a policy of not using unsafe code, and it's easy to validate that there's no unsafe code or that the few known instances are very well v
224.
by danarmak 10y ago
Why are 64bit pointers needed to match Java? Why not 32bit pointers and a 64bit long? Java APIs very rarely expose pointers anyway (e.g. in NIO).
225.
by danarmak 10y ago
> Other organizations exist to deal with those issues For the alleged issue of someone being fired due to being transgender, I fail to see how other organizations can deal with her being fired from the FSF. Do you suggest transgender peo
226.
by danarmak 10y ago
While an opposable thumb is very useful, I don't think it's necessary for "practicing" intelligence. Cut a man's thumbs off and he'll be seriously impaired, but hardly so much that society couldn't develop
227.
by danarmak 10y ago
On the one hand, one should aim to communicate successfully. If people routinely misinterpret questions, then one might want to stop using questions and stick to statements. On the other hand, such misinterpretation - even though it's
228.
by danarmak 10y ago
My "attitude" was to politely ask you what you considered to be appropriate, without stating any position myself. Perhaps you misconstrued my words. But I'm not interested in continuing a discussion that's become this he
229.
by danarmak 10y ago
Alright, let's apply the legal standard you cited. > except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The Israeli government claims they were &qu
230.
by danarmak 10y ago
Good thing Israel isn't a U.S. State, then.
231.
by danarmak 10y ago
Legal under whose laws? Should censored content be invisible only in the country that requested the censoring? That might be a heavy technological burden to bear.
232.
by danarmak 10y ago
From the article: > The MPUs will also support HDCP technology, hence, it will not be possible to make digital copies of records using USB-C digital headset outputs.
233.
by danarmak 11y ago
> Is "polyarchy" a word? Oligarchy, per the OP.
234.
by danarmak 11y ago
Why would you trust Apple for iOS but not for Safari?
235.
by danarmak 11y ago
That problem exists because the JVM doesn't have a module system. If it did, then you could load two different versions of Shapeless and use them from different parts of the code without interference. Which some people simulate by us
236.
by danarmak 11y ago
For that matter, software or algorithms can be under copyright (may not publish), patent (must publish as part of the patent), and trade secret (may publish only if already public knowledge) at the same time.
237.
by danarmak 11y ago
> We had drug development before we had patents. How is that? We've had patents for centuries; we've had drug development for maybe one century.