patmcc

24 ms·

271.
by patmcc 4y ago
Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people . The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail th
272.
by patmcc 4y ago
The news sites can certainly add a robots.txt page or stop crawling from Facebook/Google in other ways. I'd even be fine with the law saying "Google/Facebook can't do automated summaries of the page content" or
273.
by patmcc 4y ago
I'm not even talking about churning, though that can be a thing too. I need to use something for purchases, and each method of payment has pros and cons. Even if using a credit card had a visible 2% additional cost, I'd use it o
274.
by patmcc 4y ago
It's a net economic loss for consumers as a class , sure. That doesn't mean it's a loss for each individual consumer. I'm not against lowering CC fees. But the idea that they're just rent seeking is very silly.
275.
by patmcc 4y ago
From a user perspective, I get a lot of benefit from credit cards. I get cash back, an interest-free advance, the ability to do chargebacks, very low liability for lost/stolen cards, etc. If I got 1% or 2% lower prices, would I give al
276.
by patmcc 4y ago
Oh I'm sure it'll be well covered in the T&C; likely they've sent all customers an email as well.
277.
by patmcc 4y ago
If it's a 5xx response (server error) I make sure to apologize. If it's a 4xx error though? That's on the client, of course I'll make fun of them. (Joking, obviously)
278.
by patmcc 4y ago
Haha, I did the exact same thing, immediate click to pre-order. I don't think there's a single other author I'd do the same for. Calvin and Hobbes means so much to me.
279.
by patmcc 4y ago
This is neat! What's so bad about symlinks though?
280.
by patmcc 4y ago
They're not banning channels based on swearwords (yet, anyway). They are demonetizing videos with swearing - in the first bit, if too much, maybe other rules, but nobody is getting banned from saying 'shit'.
281.
by patmcc 4y ago
It's cheaper yah, but each time I lose ten minutes it costs me more than that. That was part of the pitch at work - "oh, over 3 years our total savings is $200k" or something. Great, but if each dev loses 10 minutes a month,
282.
by patmcc 4y ago
For Amazon, sure - warehouse workers and drivers. They built a lot of new warehouses, brought a lot of delivery in-house, etc. For the others? Maybe a bit; more remote work, general cloud growth, but yah they overhired.
283.
by patmcc 4y ago
Here's my problem with Teams: the search is terrible . I know I had a conversation with someone (but maybe I don't remember if it was just them, them and a few others, or a meeting chat, or a team chat), I know what it was about,
284.
by patmcc 4y ago
An urgent task needs to be done soon . An important task needs to be done by you . 1) If it's a work task and you're at the bottom of a hierarchy, everything given to you by the boss is 'important' by this definition.
285.
by patmcc 4y ago
It's maybe the dumbest possible idea, no sensible government should allow it.
286.
by patmcc 4y ago
Even if the Apple TV can't handle the TOS for some reason there's no reason it shouldn't be possible on any device with a browser rather than something with iOS or iPadOS. That's the part that's really ridiculous.
287.
by patmcc 4y ago
I hope they meant "first indoor wheat grown and sold commercially at competitive prices" or something, because yah certainly research and plant breeding have been done indoors (at least partially) for decades.
288.
by patmcc 4y ago
>>>Decide beforehand what questions you will ask This is really big; we've been using the same basic "is this person a big phony" set of questions for a long time, and it immediately filters out people who just have
289.
by patmcc 4y ago
How very magnanimous of them.
290.
by patmcc 4y ago
It's not really a trademark issue - WotC has a trademark on D&D, particular styling of that, and other stuff like Beholders. They also hold lots of copyright on stuff that is explicitly not (and never was) under the OGL - the setti
291.
by patmcc 4y ago
The law doesn't care all that much about logistics, for one. More importantly a license like this only practically matters for published work, and published work is generally not completely anonymous; WOTC doesn't know everyone wh
292.
by patmcc 4y ago
The hard part is finding someone to pay $500/pound for tomatoes.
293.
by patmcc 4y ago
Alfred Kinsey did research suggesting that ~8% of men and ~3.5% of women had engaged in beastiality at least once. Based on that I wouldn't be surprised if 20% have at least fantasised about it.
294.
by patmcc 4y ago
She goes into it a bit here: https://aella.substack.com/p/my-kink-survey-design-methodolo... but one key bit from it is here (this is quoted on the linked page, from the survey itself: “Our sexual fantasies are differe
295.
by patmcc 4y ago
It'd be hard to tease out, but I suspect most of the taboo associated with liking "teens under 18" would be for adults interested in teens under 18; presumably not many would consider it taboo for a 16 year old to be interest
296.
by patmcc 4y ago
>>An oversimplified example: your carpet shop has a rule: no shoes on in the shop. You come in with shoes, you get thrown out. A guy shows up with a shirt on that says "My value is to track as much mud on as many carpets as I can
297.
by patmcc 4y ago
You can have very high building standards and freedom to build duplexes/condos/whatever, those aren't at odds. We should probably disincentivize (or at least not incentivize) single family homes in many places, higher density
298.
by patmcc 4y ago
This would be a subsidy for builders and purchasers of new homes - overwhelmingly people with money. Why would we do this? Set higher building code standards instead. Same outcome but now the people who benefit pay for it. At the same time
299.
by patmcc 4y ago
It's totally ridiculous. Imagine Walmart tried to do the same thing with physical goods; say any shoplifter Walmart catches immediately gets all their Walmart purchases taken back. We'd never allow it. Even if they were conflicted
300.
by patmcc 4y ago
That might work to get your money back, but I'll bet Google also has a policy of firing customers who take them to court.

More ›