nybble41

78 ms·

631.
by nybble41 5y ago
Sure, the payoff is huge if you can charge royalties, but so is the risk. You don't want to be the one that spends tons of money to develop a new standard only to have someone else's design chosen. You're also limited in how
632.
by nybble41 5y ago
The recommended way to handle this is to use a URI which uniquely identifies the content, such as an IPFS address. Then, while the data is still stored outside the blockchain, anyone who has a copy can trivially prove that it's authent
633.
by nybble41 5y ago
> When USB-C outlives its usefulness, it can be legislated away in favour of a different standard. When USB-C outlives its usefulness there won't be any ready-made standard for the legislation to switch to. Or at least if there is s
634.
by nybble41 5y ago
The OTP algorithm can be seen as a form of stream cipher (where the key is the stream), but what you actually said was "a lot of encryption algorithms are various ways of creating a one-time pad". This is false since a one-time
635.
by nybble41 5y ago
Trade secrets don't prevent someone else from independently developing the same thing, or reverse-engineering the solution. Very few things can be successfully kept as trade secrets for an extended time. Moreover, patents do not preclu
636.
by nybble41 5y ago
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm pretty sure there were protection rackets and shakedowns long before someone got the idea to rebrand them as "governments" and "taxes".
637.
by nybble41 5y ago
If all the shareholders were to sue and divide the payout according to the number of shares they hold then yes, that would be a losing proposition. If only some of the shareholders sue, however, the payout from the suit might exceed the d
638.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Unless you’re using a true random number generator that works on a mechanical/electrical process… …you're not using a one-time pad. OTP requires the pad to be truly random: at least one bit of unique, never-used-elsewhere ent
639.
by nybble41 5y ago
Under capitalism, with that kind of price difference, someone else would move in and start manufacturing the same drug and selling it for less to gain market share. That's competition for you. Or if no one else wants to do the job you
640.
by nybble41 5y ago
> if both parties "won" then didn't both ultimately lose? No, because even in a capitalist society "winning" is defined by each party's relative improvement over the state they would be in if they didn'
641.
by nybble41 5y ago
Private health care is adversarial (so you have to look out for your own interests) but this does not automatically imply a conflict of interest. It may become a conflict of interest if you get your advice about which tests or treatment
642.
by nybble41 5y ago
> there was no evidence that the prices were enforced by unfair practices Copyright is the unfair practice at work here enforcing high prices for distribution of information, a service which can be provided at practically zero cost whe
643.
by nybble41 5y ago
> There's a very specific reason it [the electoral college] exists. There are valid historical reasons for it, but it's a bit anti-democratic just the same. The rules which give more representation per capita to residents o
644.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Theirs is the government money, and if the government does something bad, they need to compensate. Theirs is the money the government takes . Taxpayers (as such) are fellow victims. Voters may have supported the government's acti
645.
by nybble41 5y ago
The police departments should pay for that. And they should be privately funded, so that the payments come out of their profits.
646.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Had they waited for the criminal cases to play out, it would've been years before they saw their money. They could have sued directly in civil court without waiting for the criminal cases to play out. If the Feds have enough evide
647.
by nybble41 5y ago
You are describing corporatism, not capitalism. It is not "maximum capitalism" to always side with the employer in any dispute, ignoring the natural rights of the employee. If the employer causes harm to an employee, deliberately
648.
by nybble41 5y ago
Taking what belongs to someone else and choosing how it will be used without the owner's consent is the purest essence of theft. It makes no difference whatsoever that—according to your own values and preferences , not theirs—you thin
649.
by nybble41 5y ago
> We don't use open source because it's "morally better", we use it because it consistently produces superior solutions. Why not both?
650.
by nybble41 5y ago
PipeWire also handles video (e.g. webcams, screen capture) in addition to audio.
651.
by nybble41 5y ago
Until C++14 constexpr on a non-static member function did actually imply const , since mutation was (logically enough) not permitted in constexpr functions. C++14 relaxed this restriction, however, by allowing constexpr functions to
652.
by nybble41 5y ago
> … thereby harming all those companies and citizens that do pay their taxes as required. The only one harming them is the tax collector. Taxes are the harm here; Uber is providing a means for some to avoid being harmed. It's just
653.
by nybble41 5y ago
What you want is to work with a service that customers will choose to rely on. This implies that sometimes—to get the benefit of being "an Uber driver" and not just some random guy with a car taking people for rides—you need to
654.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable. You should have enough savings set aside that going without a paycheck for at least a week or two won't put
655.
by nybble41 5y ago
Every country that funds social programs with an income tax has mandatory employee contributions, differing only in the visibility of the cost to the employee (up-front taxes vs. a line-item in the pay stub vs. a "employer portion&quot
656.
by nybble41 5y ago
There is still a risk that someone is running a MITM attack. The initial conversation would be authentic, but the key belongs to someone else who is just forwarding the messages. Your communications would no longer be private and they could
657.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Because F-Droid runs their own builds and requires published source code, … That seems… completely reasonable for distributors of open-source projects. Mandatory, even, for compliance many open-source licenses. Are you saying there are
658.
by nybble41 5y ago
> You have taken a theoretical question - the definition of sovereign government and the monopoly on violence - and applied it to reality. It's Alice In Wonderland stuff. I'm not seeing an issue here. Theory which one cannot ap
659.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Most people are law-abiding and happily comply with the law and government authority without any threat of violence. Most poeple have never had a practical opportunity to decide whether or not they will choose to comply with the law or
660.
by nybble41 5y ago
You may find this paper interesting: GhostCell: Separating Permissions from Data in Rust < https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/ghostcell/paper.pdf > The essential idea is that you can use one of these "Ghost

More ›