pc86

4 ms·

31.
by pc86 1mo ago
It's not an argument, it's a joke. And the crux of why it's not a real argument is if you're willing to do Job X for $N, there is basically no scenario in which you're also willing to pay $N out of your own pocket
32.
by pc86 1mo ago
I think this lends intent toward the article that it doesn't necessarily warrant. The author is just wrong about the philosophy, and the logic (and probably other things too). That doesn't mean he's a sociopath, or that he&#x
33.
by pc86 1mo ago
Two economists are walking down a forest path and they come across a piece of animal excrement. The first economist turns to the second and says "I'll give you $100 to eat that!" The second one eats it and the first one gives
34.
by pc86 1mo ago
I wonder if they had been more pure technically, would have they been acquired for more than $13 billion? Less? Acquired at all?
35.
by pc86 1mo ago
Comments exist for humans to understand the why of the code, including perhaps external dependencies/assumptions/requirements. LLMs inserting code comments makes zero sense by definition.
36.
by pc86 1mo ago
> An open social protocol with a chance of working > ...with a chance of working [citation needed] I think.
37.
by pc86 2mo ago
Who do you expect to get prosecuted when no law has been broken?
38.
by pc86 2mo ago
Yeah it's almost as if this is obviously a joke and not meant to be taken seriously.
39.
by pc86 2mo ago
I mean nothing should be an Access form, ever. :)
40.
by pc86 2mo ago
The whole point is that it works fine without being valid. So your two comments seems diametrically opposed to each other.
41.
by pc86 2mo ago
But nobody wants their minds connected and all of them to immediately be able to see, comprehend, and act on anything any of them sees. This is what a surveillance dragnet backed by AI is. The only people who want that are the ones that wan
42.
by pc86 2mo ago
I also think it's pretty likely that if a website has fully valid HTML, that website makes little to no money. Because if it actually was a revenue-generating venture it's extremely unlikely the person or people behind it would be
43.
by pc86 2mo ago
What does "fully valid HTML" get you that "mostly-valid HTML" doesn't? I'm not trying to be flippant but this just seems like a really silly thing to aim for and an even sillier thing to try to shame people abo
44.
by pc86 2mo ago
I've been on both extremes - single carry-on (with no personal item, or a laptop in a bag solely to watch movies on the plane) for a two week vacation, and checked bag for a 3-day work trip. It depends entirely on context. Purpose of t
45.
by pc86 2mo ago
It depends on if you can say things like "it is good they are supporting this" or "I'm glad they're doing this" or "good for them" without having to couch it in a bunch of stuff about how terrible the
46.
by pc86 2mo ago
You can tell how intellectually honest someone is when someone they hate makes a good point. It's possible to dislike (or even hate) Zuckerberg and understand that he's making a good point for selfish motives, and still want that
47.
by pc86 2mo ago
Sturgeon's Law is proved correct time and again. Most things are crap. Most people produce some crap in their lives. Some people only produce crap. Those people still need to eat but unfortunately some of them (somehow) find their way
48.
by pc86 2mo ago
You know the answer, they would just steal money from people they don't like the pay for everything, and when that runs out almost immediately they'll implement rationing and waitlists. Tale as old as time.
49.
by pc86 2mo ago
There is literally an entire cottage industry full of people whose entire livelihood depends on getting people medical treatment after it's been denied.
50.
by pc86 2mo ago
It's MIT licensed, you are free to do whatever you want to it, including removing the logo. They're basically just saying "we'd prefer you didn't do this, but we're not preventing you from doing it."
51.
by pc86 2mo ago
I didn't say they were comparable. But there is a common refrain that every single person who works in the trades has their body basically destroyed by the time they're 40, which isn't remotely true, and that nobody who works
52.
by pc86 2mo ago
"Not brave enough" to shoot an innocent person in the back and then run away?
53.
by pc86 2mo ago
> A lot of those guys have back pain, inflexible schedules, working in extreme weather, And a lot of them don't? A lot of people who work on a computer all day also have back pain and inflexible schedules. Hell, I'm sure a lot
54.
by pc86 2mo ago
You think the software around today is worse than software in the late 90s?
55.
by pc86 2mo ago
It's because it's two completely different things - drone with a potential (unconfirmed) explosive found somewhere on the airport. Sounded like maybe inside somewhere, e.g. not just flying around. Also, "something" hit a
56.
by pc86 2mo ago
Look at the photo of the license plate. If a cop pulls up behind that car and runs the plate, or gets a call for "34 DTM," that car is 100% getting pulled over. Dragnet surveillance is unconstitutional and the people involved belo
57.
by pc86 2mo ago
> But when the police report was created and the plate was entered into Flock’s system, it was just recorded as 34 DTM. The license plate is 34 DTM. How would this have turned out any differently if a cop had run the plate behind this
58.
by pc86 2mo ago
Sportsball reference, permaban? There's nothing wrong with "engaging with" the identity of someone when their identity is both reprehensible and negates any impartiality.
59.
by pc86 2mo ago
> But when the police report was created and the plate was entered into Flock’s system, it was just recorded as 34 DTM. The license plate is 34 DTM. There is nothing about Flock that caused this to happen - had any officer run this pla
60.
by pc86 2mo ago
"Should" or "are required to?"

More ›