jenwkejnwjkef

4 ms·

1.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Nobody wants to see the XOR solutions. These questions are really basic and only filter out the non-programmers. Any decent programmer should be able to solve all of these without a problem.
2.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Yes but every extension that does anything remotely interesting needs access to "your entire browsing history," which is a comment much scarier than it usually is. The truth is that it is impossible for a computer to distinguish m
3.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Yeah. The $99/year is big enough to pretty much block out all hobby devs and open-source projects, so what's left are generally commercial and closed-source. Apple says that they do their own vetting of extensions, but I don'
4.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Sci-hub is not breaking any laws. They are accused of breaking laws. Who gave Twitter, in your eyes, the power to act as a judge?
5.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Intellectual "property" is not property.
6.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
Yeah, it's pretty weird how he uses him to further left-libertarianism. How do you know Aaron Swartz stood for anarchism? He seems like anti-intellectual property to me, but you know right-libertarians oppose intellectual property too.
7.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
> they actually review and actively publish the information They do it to save their own ass. Since they publish it, they are responsible. Facebook should either review the all content they publish, or they should stop being a publisher.
8.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal&#
9.
by jenwkejnwjkef 6y ago
I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does th