dventimi

39 ms·

361.
by dventimi 3y ago
The answer to a question that begins with "Why" is "no"?
362.
by dventimi 3y ago
If you were told that getting rid of it would lower pedestrian fatalities, and you believed that, would YOU want to take it away?
363.
by dventimi 3y ago
Perhaps some of the people doing the arguing are on the winning end of the wealth gap, and it just hits a little too close to home.
364.
by dventimi 3y ago
https://archive.ph/2024.01.16-221827/https://www.newyorker.c...
365.
by dventimi 3y ago
Then it should be easy for you to find at least one passage that demonstrates that.
366.
by dventimi 3y ago
> The author pretends that his library is what hypertext and hypermedia are as envisioned by Time Berners-Lee and Roy Fielding, and that his approach is the only true representation of both. Does he? Evidence or it didn't happen.
367.
by dventimi 3y ago
Supabase has arguably a better alternative, which uses logical replication and can be used outside of Supabase. https://github.com/supabase/realtime
368.
by dventimi 3y ago
Excellent point! Bravo
369.
by dventimi 3y ago
Maybe you're right. Maybe I didn't read the thread. Thing is, you haven't demonstrated that yet. You could've, though. You could've really put me in my place by laying to rest the lingering doubts that you know anyt
370.
by dventimi 3y ago
> Why don't you just use the standard term "advanced driver assistance system"? Because that's not the standard term. > I don't want to speculate on what juries might do Put another way, no you can't ru
371.
by dventimi 3y ago
Gibberish. Sophistry. Gorilla dust thrown to obscure what's probably happened here. What's probably happened is that you had a reason--or thought you did--but that's now thrown into doubt and so you're trying to obfuscat
372.
by dventimi 3y ago
I see that my hopes that readers would understand that I wrote "autonomous vehicle function" and not "autonomous vehicle" deliberately to avoid confusing the two, that I wasn't using a legal definition, and that I w
373.
by dventimi 3y ago
Just as I'm less interested in what drivers should do versus what the government should do, I'm also less interested in what the current state of affairs is versus what it could be.
374.
by dventimi 3y ago
> That's discussing security. No, that's discussing complex systems and important principles to adopt when creating and maintaining them. > In the context of driving, blame is almost always placed on individuals. In the co
375.
by dventimi 3y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/202... One of those lessons is that systems must be designed to be operated by real humans. It's remarkably common for organizations to look at a
376.
by dventimi 3y ago
> The biggest mistake here is conflating Autosteer with Full Self Driving (FSD)...Any Tesla owner should know this Personally, I'm less interested in what Tesla owners should then I am in what policymakers should force Tesla to do.
377.
by dventimi 3y ago
https://archive.ph/2023.12.31-162322/https://www.washingtonp...
378.
by dventimi 3y ago
> If you use a procedural programming language Occasionally, I use a procedural programming language in the database. Usually, I don't.
379.
by dventimi 3y ago
>"You have just spent a day refusing to hear it.* No, I have spent a day trying to persuade you to explain it. Now, I'm prepared to accept that you can't.
380.
by dventimi 3y ago
I'll grant I'm pretty skeptical of those.
381.
by dventimi 3y ago
I do almost all of my work in the database. I don't know if you want to call that "low code" or not. Evidently, it doesn't look like code to many other developers but then again it precedes current low-code platforms b
382.
by dventimi 3y ago
I'm skeptical of code. Code is needed to create operating systems, database engines, game engines, network servers, graphics and plotting libraries, and other tools that are typically used by software engineers but not end users, and y
383.
by dventimi 3y ago
No, they can't do a better job of selling it, not if the corporation has shareholders to look after.
384.
by dventimi 3y ago
It's not so much an observation as it is a claim. You can't observe something that isn't there, after all.
385.
by dventimi 3y ago
Please. They don't have highly efficient production. What they have is access to cheap labor overseas, maintained again by the government. It may not be patents and copyrights, exactly, but it's the same basic idea: the government
386.
by dventimi 3y ago
> we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over Your claim that we're splitting hairs, microscopic or otherwise, is not strengthened by adding t
387.
by dventimi 3y ago
FWIW, I had forgotten that there's an easier way to implement the policies: https://asciinema.org/a/629411
388.
by dventimi 3y ago
The point is that it's difficult to become a big corporation without a monopoly, and it's difficult to maintain a monopoly without government help through patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Trade secrets--which have got nothing
389.
by dventimi 3y ago
> I never said monopoly control. You didn't have to. When asked to name one example of corporations getting people to pay for things they don't have to, both of the examples you named were examples of a monopoly. Burberry, for
390.
by dventimi 3y ago
> What do the customers get? They get nothing more than the social status of other people seeing them have it. That value is something that doesn't exist except that Burberry created it out of thin air. If those customers value tha

More ›