feanaro

73 ms·

901.
by feanaro 6y ago
I don't think I am, but I am using the word in a way that is not very common, in order to convey a lesson. Could you have recited Harry Potter easily before you've heard it the first time?
902.
by feanaro 6y ago
I know, I wasn't trying to ignore or denigrate this purpose. It seemed apt to show a similar tool which still has a drastically different (and complementing) purpose, which is human readability.
903.
by feanaro 6y ago
We've been there before and history is just repeating itself because people are not insisting on decentralised technology and open standards. They've forgotten (or have never known) the dangers of lock-in and are giving in to the
904.
by feanaro 6y ago
This is an interesting tool for computing minimal diffs, but the result is not very human friendly. If this is your goal and you are looking for something better than diff, have a look at graphtage: https://github.com/trail
905.
by feanaro 6y ago
> But fundamentally, intellectual property is a form of property that includes intangible things. I think the idea of code (or information in general) being intangible has some problems. Point me to information which exists without being
906.
by feanaro 6y ago
True. However, I'm delineating here between the disapproval of the use of copyleft as a mechanism and your personal (and practical) preference to use something else that suits your needs better. In essence, I think copyleft has its pla
907.
by feanaro 6y ago
I respect BurntSushi's stance and I think it is a valid one. However, the disapproval of the use of copyright as a hack against itself is ideological in nature and is therefore somewhat contrary to deep practicality.
908.
by feanaro 6y ago
If he was a contributor, MDN is partly his, in the sense that it can even be anyone's.
909.
by feanaro 6y ago
Also, people haven't stopped torrenting at all in many parts of the world.
910.
by feanaro 6y ago
> Reproducing more efficiently is a win for natural selection and will normally result in a dominant strain: whether that strain is more deadly or not is going to be random. The conventional wisdom is such because a virus that is swiftly
911.
by feanaro 6y ago
What if this tool remains public in a different part of the world? Are you going to wall off from the rest of the world so you can no longer see the tool and pretend it doesn't exist?
912.
by feanaro 6y ago
Why would that have any bearing on the validity and legality of RIAA's logic?
913.
by feanaro 6y ago
Your response is phrased in a way that all the meaning lies in the exact definition of what you mean by "knows". There is certainly evidence that there are long-term effects. Example: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten
914.
by feanaro 6y ago
I think there are essentially two problems here that decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in these kinds of discussions. One is that people often mix political and legal matters in colloquial discussions of such topics. I frequently catch mys
915.
by feanaro 6y ago
> It's literally designed to download content from sites that don't allow downloads. You can't simultaneously offer a video for people to watch and still "not allow downloads". What you actually mean is that they
916.
by feanaro 6y ago
> * We still don't have a button to signal that we intend to speak; we don't need a fancy "pressure sensitive chair" to accomplish this. Jitsi Meet has this: https://meet.jit.si/
917.
by feanaro 6y ago
> Google works hard to maintain their dominance on a lot of fronts, some questionable and in need of regulation, but the biggest reason for their position is, as it always was, ranking algos. I've seen this repeatedly brought into q
918.
by feanaro 6y ago
According to Hagemeister (source in this article), the tests only download the first 10 KB of the videos, landing this very strongly in the domain of fair use.
919.
by feanaro 6y ago
I like think you are wrong and I have presented my case previously, to which you haven't responded. Nothing in copyright law itself can force you to watch ads while downloading a public video. I am completely sure this is the case in m
920.
by feanaro 6y ago
The crux is in the expectation : they expect that they will make X in a given day, but an expectation is not a guarantee or a right. They also could have made X in a given day, but sometimes that just doesn't happen due to various f
921.
by feanaro 6y ago
I still think this is an unnecessarily defeatist attitude. Let's wait and see. For now, these kind of things serve as a demonstration of spirit and of the fact that there are many people who do not agree with this interpretation of the
922.
by feanaro 6y ago
Yes, you are indeed talking about the opportunity cost. Re-uploading the video as your own (with or without ads) would indeed constitute copyright infringement, but without it, it is not.
923.
by feanaro 6y ago
> Granted, the response to that didn't make much sense - the current law doesn't have to directly affect end users for us to make a reasonable prediction based on it that laws proposed in the future would attempt to do just tha
924.
by feanaro 6y ago
> If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off Obtaining Taylor Swift's Shake it Off from a public YouTube video without watching ads is a legitimate way of obtaining it. That is exactly the point.
925.
by feanaro 6y ago
How does it increase the amount of cash I have? I watch the video, without ads, and I have exactly the same amount of cash as before. It also does not decrease the amount of cash owned by the content owner or hosting company (apart from hos
926.
by feanaro 6y ago
> literally stealing the ad revenue. Are you sure you want to say it's literally stealing the ad revenue? I would imagine literally stealing the ad revenue would require robbing the bank or safe where the ad revenue money is store
927.
by feanaro 6y ago
I'm actually arguing that it is wrong to claim that a copy is even being made by the mere act of streaming (i.e. transferring the bytes of) a media file and hence you cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only i
928.
by feanaro 6y ago
People seem to continually be misinterpreting this as copyright infringement, and you are right that it isn't. The fact that you bypassed the viewing of ads changes nothing in this matter. Otherwise, if we would allow this interpretati
929.
by feanaro 6y ago
> The disconnect for many - including myself - is that we remember the first few years of Chrome. How revolutionary it was and how it provided a beautiful path off ‘the terror’ that was Internet Explorer. Funny how history can be subject
930.
by feanaro 6y ago
> This is something I've often called a retreat into complexity. Thanks, I'm using this from now on.

More ›