pluma

175 ms·

721.
by pluma 9y ago
It's amazing to how great lengths you are willing to go to defend people's right to call for women and children be shot at the border.
722.
by pluma 9y ago
It's not about keeping shush about ideologies. It's about prohibiting people from actively using ideologies. I guess I can see why Americans would object to it: political hate speech is weaponised speech and Americans are ridicu
723.
by pluma 9y ago
The big mistake in that logic is that controlling speech also means controlling what speech politicians can use. In the past years American politicians have literally asked for people like Assange and Snowden to be lynched or murdered in co
724.
by pluma 9y ago
Freedom of expression is meaningless unless you have the social/political power to back that expression up. If Joe Blow tweets "kill the kikes", nobody cares. If someone with millions of devout followers says the same, there
725.
by pluma 9y ago
I think "could X have stopped Hitler" is asking the wrong question (and it betrays the same kind of black/white thinking that is fundamental to the rhetoric I mentioned). The Treaty of Versailles was crippling the economy, th
726.
by pluma 9y ago
If you think anything is worth defending at all cost , that should give you pause. You seem to understand that speech can persuade people of wrong things. Do you think it's possible you've been wrongly persuaded to hold the bel
727.
by pluma 9y ago
First of all, that is "stars added in that year", not "stars total". Secondly, shouldn't the fact that that would have made Polymer #3 given you some thought? Polymer has ~19k stars total. React has ~85k stars total
728.
by pluma 9y ago
Oh, before anyone thinks this backs up radical "SJW" sentiments: there's plenty of hatred on that side of the arena as well. Intersectionality especially has a tendency to break down into othering. Victim narratives easily le
729.
by pluma 9y ago
That's the massive understanding I see when people who don't live in Germany complain about German censorship of speech: It's not about feelings. It's about shaping other people's opinions. If someone says "jac
730.
by pluma 9y ago
There's a distinction between "shitposting" (or smack/trash talk) and actual hate speech. The lines can be blurry and I think Poe's law can lead to miscommunication in both directions, e.g. * person A might say some
731.
by pluma 9y ago
No, that's not how it works, sadly. HN is explicitly curated, so some posts get bumped/nerfed by moderators. Also the "natural" rank seems to be a lot more complicated than just upvotes over time. There are a lot of comp
732.
by pluma 9y ago
To clarify: I'm surprised this article is on the front page because I find it unlikely there's genuine interest in this (relative to some of the other stuff that's usually on HN) for a number of reasons. First of all, it&#x27
733.
by pluma 9y ago
How did this end up on the front page?
734.
by pluma 9y ago
The reason you're remembering HTML 3.2 being nice is that you're remembering a period when people didn't try to do anything complicated. Using tables for layout had nothing to do with HTML 4 and everything to do with the web
735.
by pluma 9y ago
> because they didn't want to close their elements That is an incredibly uninformed view of early 2000s web content authoring. The reason people didn't like XHTML was that it provided no tangible benefit. In fact, my experience
736.
by pluma 9y ago
> It was just too complicated for most people Not just people. What's the point of being able to embed MathML in your XHTML if there's only a single browser that understands it? And what's the point in using XHTML when you
737.
by pluma 9y ago
As HN sometimes likes to pretend XHTML is the answer to all problems with HTML and the Semantic Web would have worked if only developers hadn't been such idiots at the time, let me reiterate a few things: First off, a full disclosure:
738.
by pluma 9y ago
> but once it got used for presentation too So everything after HTML 2.0 (RFC 1866)? The STYLE and FONT elements were added in HTML 3.2, but when tables were added to HTML 2 in RFC 1942 they already included presentational attributes. He
739.
by pluma 9y ago
Were you there when XHTML 2 was born and died a slow death? The Semantic Web died with the rise of search engines. Not that the well-formed, validated markup we had back then was generally even remotely semantic. Heck, even Google wasn&#x27
740.
by pluma 9y ago
I'd even go so far to say that the only way something can be literally unreadable is if it is physically impossible to do so (e.g. unrecoverable data) or there is not yet any known way of determining the meaning of a given text (e.g.
741.
by pluma 9y ago
Yeah, I'm just pointing that bit out because Dienstvertrag ("service contract", i.e. charging per hour) is a type of contract you might use to hire a freelancer (the other one is Werkvertrag , "work contract", i.
742.
by pluma 9y ago
I have suffered from depression (and still do sometimes) so believe me when I say: unless you're a trained professional, it's not your job to be her therapist. If she actively sabotages her therapy and her therapists can't fi
743.
by pluma 9y ago
Ugh, yes. When I was little my parents kept telling me I'm smart so every time I got a bad grade they told me I could have done better (but didn't show me how ) and whenever I was sure I was going to get a bad grade because I kne
744.
by pluma 9y ago
No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature
745.
by pluma 9y ago
> under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher Yes and no. There is such a thing as an irrevocable usage right. But I'll concede that even an irrevocable right can be nullified under the right condition
746.
by pluma 9y ago
> Additionally, software is special cased in German copyright law (§ 69b): the employer automatically gets all exclusive exploitation rights. Keep in mind that's only for regular employees. Freelancers are not considered employees s
747.
by pluma 9y ago
I can tell you that most German companies that take their code's legal status seriously would reject anonymous PRs simply because it is an unnecessary liability. If it's a throwaway project with little economic value for the compa
748.
by pluma 9y ago
Amazing considering that both FF and Chrome point this out when opening a private window. Firefox: > Private Browsing doesn’t make you anonymous on the Internet. Your employer or Internet service provider can still know what page you v
749.
by pluma 9y ago
As far as I can tell from that section this is more about show-and-tell. There's a difference between demonstrating something to teach it (mimicry) and using language to teach it (explanation). If I tell you that you can put a stick in
750.
by pluma 9y ago
Because when people say "language" they usually imply certain capabilities we have not yet observed in other animals, especially when talking about what humans have that other animals don't. It's similar to being able to

More ›