Y
HN Search
Hacker News Search
new
|
comments
|
top
|
jobs
danlitt
searching PlanetScale…
1.
▲
2.
▲
3.
▲
4.
▲
5.
▲
6.
▲
6 ms
·
91.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Not addressing your main point, magistrates and judges are not the same thing. It would be much worse if it were at the discretion of a magistrate.
92.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
I do agree with your conclusion, but the catalog in most online shops is certainly not impartial. Amazon sells the entire first page of search placement, for example.
93.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
The opposite? Literally any justification would be "opposite". Any justification is better than no justification!
94.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> I am excruciatingly aware of the difference between a copyleft license and the public domain. Then why did you say "no harm was caused"? Clearly the harm of "using our copylefted work to create proprietary software"
95.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Yes, he seems like a psycho.
96.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
The quoted text describes separate comments from different police officers. It's also reported by a third party, is a paraphrase rather than a quote, and isn't bragging.
97.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Are you sure about that? Police brutality has been reported as a huge issue in the US since at least the 60s. If anything, from the outside it looks like it's got better since Iraq.
98.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not th
99.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
What does this actually have to do with agents? What does the protocol include that makes this useful with AI rather than just a boring old program?
100.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
I actually agree with you that it is working exactly as designed. It is starting wars, separating families, sending citizens to foreign prisons to be tortured, and establishing concentration camps on American soil. The system is working :-(
101.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
I grant you that it is different, but you kind of left totally unaddressed the fact that it is not very powerful at the moment. The US is in far more danger than Canada.
102.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> We own and operate our proprietary platform, but we do not own, control or store customer data or the underlying data maintained by independent data sources. This seems like a critical sentence. Is this database actually operated by ID
103.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Most countries already have whistleblower laws. If you are living somewhere that has any kind of "wrongful termination" legislation, an employer asking you to commit a crime is an open and shut case. I would guess that all of the
104.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
There is in fact nothing wrong with a middle man who provides a service, as long as their power over you is limited to the provision of the service. The "tech platforms" are not middle men in this sense. They don't just provi
105.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
"extremely successful business decision" and "inherently disliked" can both be true. Increasing fees quite often works out for the business too, but consumers don't generally like it.
106.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
ok, I'll stop. I am not the only person who suspected you!
107.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Sorry, you are wasting your time arguing, I am pretty sure this "user" is an LLM. edit: Apparently not!
108.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
I found this comment because I was wondering the same thing on a completely unrelated thread. I strongly suspect this is a bot.
109.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary. Sufficient is not a &quo
110.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too? Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necess
111.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things? > I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where yo
112.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
This quote is both funny and sad. It reads like an advertisement.
113.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be un
114.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
Uh yes of course, I thought of that and thought "isn't that neat" but of course it goes against exactly what the author wants. I don't find this fear very natural I suppose! A different trusted third party could be nomin
115.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
A risk of putting in a literal person is that you might stop maintaining the project, and changing the maintainer is now effectively a license change. It may be better to say "consensus among whoever is currently maintaining the projec
116.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> 'Illegal' doesn't really mean anything in this This is a thread arguing about what the law should be. > Fact is hacking can get to those keys. Everything made by humans is fallible.
117.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> Perhaps the maintainer wants to force the issue? I doubt it, and I don't see any evidence that's what they're doing. There are probably better ways, if that's what they want. > Checking the license of the transit
118.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
I did not expect people to take "API" so literally. This point is what I was referring to when I said "I am simplifying slightly". The point is that a clean room impl begins from a specification of what the software does
119.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
> If you somehow actually randomly produce the same code without a reference, it's not a copy and doesn't violate copyright. I don't believe this, and I doubt that the sense of copying in copyright law is so literal. For i
120.
▲
by
danlitt
7mo ago
As long as you never read the original code, it is very likely that whatever you write is yours. So I would not be surprised to read judges indicating in this direction. But I would be a little surprised to find out this was an actual par
More ›