nybble41

80 ms·

751.
by nybble41 5y ago
> How often are you going on road trips? Over the last 18 months or so, between remote work and lockdown, journeys of 350+ miles with minimal stops (< 30 minutes total) probably make up about ¾ of the trips and 90%+ of the miles on my
752.
by nybble41 5y ago
You definition of "harm" is in dire need of recalibration. Harm occurs when someone else's action infringes upon your exclusive right as (self-)owner to decide how your person or property is to be consumed at any given point
753.
by nybble41 5y ago
Are you really going to switch to another party which is even further from your own position on several issues which are at least as critical just so that you can get some representation (from a fringe party with little actual influence) on
754.
by nybble41 5y ago
> In the rare case where something is harmful, there must be a way to vote it down. If you are harmed by it then you get a veto, which is better than merely getting to "vote it down". No action which harms you can legitimately
755.
by nybble41 5y ago
From the actual text of the proposal it seems "wallet" means an account hosted at a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP). Nothing to do with crypto wallets at all, really. These are "Know Your Customer" rules; if you&#x2
756.
by nybble41 5y ago
This is a feature, not a bug. In the "vote with your wallet" system you only get a "negative vote"—actually veto power—when something directly harms you. Which is as it should be.
757.
by nybble41 5y ago
> ... in all parliamentary systems I just vote for representatives/parties that push the opinion I want. ... on perhaps one or two hot-button issues. You won't find any "representative" which actually represents you o
758.
by nybble41 5y ago
On the contrary, nothing has really changed here. If you're moving your crypto to an exchange in order to sell it and withdraw euros or dollars or whatever, guess what—you're already in the system. These rules already applied due
759.
by nybble41 5y ago
Many poor precedents are grounded in strong emotional reactions at odds with basic principles, and in my opinion obscenity cases are a good example of that. Still, the classification as obscenity is more about the form of the speech than
760.
by nybble41 5y ago
> It doesn't accomplish anything and literally adds nothing to the debate. It's important because to many people (myself included) the spirit of the freedom of speech referred to in the 1st Amendment is that force (i.e. the e
761.
by nybble41 5y ago
Being laid off is a reasonable basis for claiming unemployment benefits for a short time—long enough to find another job. It's not a reason to stay on unemployment indefinitely when there are jobs available comparable to the one you ha
762.
by nybble41 5y ago
> I’d much rather you could see the score, but still be able to read them easily. I agree. Actually I'd almost forgotten they did that since I use the StyleBot extension and have ".commtext { color: black; }" in the CSS fo
763.
by nybble41 5y ago
A straightforward reading of the 1st Amendment indicates that there can be no such thing as illegal content under US law, including whatever you are right now considering proposing as an exception. An act involving speech may be illegal;
764.
by nybble41 5y ago
The analogy to voting to flawed in that actual voting is much too powerful, because it involves politics and the use of force. When you "vote" with your dollars your choices are to either support something or ignore it and spend y
765.
by nybble41 5y ago
Even if that were "Government is (in practice ) elected by people, counter balanced by court", it wouldn't be enough. The people electing the government do not have the right to use force to coerce other people (the owners &
766.
by nybble41 5y ago
Google was happy to refuse the "services" these newspapers were offering, by removing them from their index. The newspapers balked at that—because they get more value from being included in Google's index than they stand to &
767.
by nybble41 5y ago
Yes, that is understood. My point was that if the intention was to prohibit "acts of creation" then the official list is woefully incomplete, and rather arbitrary; other acts which could equally well be considered "creation&q
768.
by nybble41 5y ago
A prohibition on "creation" is over-broad. Any action taken purposefully can be considered an act of creation. That would include choosing to adhere to the law (thus creating a world where there is more compliance with the law) ev
769.
by nybble41 5y ago
It's not just a matter of putting in enough man-hours to create decent bindings. Native-C++ libraries are hard to write good bindings for in the best of times, typically requiring C wrappers with limited functionality and/or signi
770.
by nybble41 5y ago
> He was right because while almost everyone passed his classes, not everyone ended up with successful careers. That can hurt the school's reputation if it becomes known for passing students who aren't actually prepared to do t
771.
by nybble41 5y ago
> But right now patents are judged on whether they were “obvious to the person skilled in the art, at the time the application was filed”, which is both no less a matter of judgement, and a bar much easier and fuzzier to cross. Yes, and
772.
by nybble41 5y ago
> Progress relies on reverse engineering and teardowns. Progress has always relied on reverse engineering and teardowns. (Or independent reinvention.) You don't learn how anything really works be reading the patents, which tend to
773.
by nybble41 5y ago
> As I asked before, if I implemented the same logic in an FPGA, would that make it patentable? No. Like software, anything which you can implement in an FPGA is pretty obviously math . It's literally a mathematical (boolean logic)
774.
by nybble41 5y ago
> This allows precisely those patents which one would expect provide value, and not the rest. That's only true if we assume you have a handy oracle available to determine what actually would happen if the invention were neither publ
775.
by nybble41 5y ago
Set a cap on the number of patents issued each year. Like 500, max, across all industries. Or set a limit of 10,000 active patents, with new ones only accepted as old ones expire. If you want a chance at a patent you file with the PTO (unde
776.
by nybble41 5y ago
The cities don't provide medallions, they mandate them and limit the supply. The default state without the city's intervention (i.e. no medallions needed to operate a taxi) is equivalent to having a superabundance of medallions. A
777.
by nybble41 5y ago
Basing your retirement plan around the continuing artificial scarcity of taxi medallions is not smart . The city has no obligation to keep the medallions scarce; their value can drop to zero overnight due to changing regulations (or a drop
778.
by nybble41 5y ago
If you feel that you could bring in $1000 without involving the company and keep it all for yourself, why don't you just do that instead? Might it be that you actually value having someone else manage the capital and legal compliance
779.
by nybble41 5y ago
> but you are still entitled to what you receive That's the difference. With an insurance contract you are entitled to a payout when the conditions are met because the insurance company agreed to that as part of the contract. The
780.
by nybble41 5y ago
It's not as if IP addresses were ever a reliable way to tell whether a data subject was physically located within the EU. VPNs and proxies have been around forever. Someone could be accessing your site through Tor Browser or I2P whil

More ›