shkkmo

57 ms·

961.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Right, but the original characterization was clearly about the discussion on the github issue that was closed.
962.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> In the case of an attachment, the message body is multipart/mixed, where one part is the actual message the sender typed and other parts are the attachments. This is not correct. In multipart/mixed you can have any number of
963.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Humans make mistakes too, but the kinds of mistakes tend to be different.
964.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> While there's plenty of more or less dispassionate comments focused on finding a solution, there's a greater number of people from the peanut gallery drowning that out with comments that amount to "I don't like this
965.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> HTML email is not merely an HTML file sent by email – it is the email. I'm not sure if the semantic distinction makes sense. An attached file in an email is the also the email. Both HTML, images, and other content types are all
966.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> No one cares that JohnFen choses to not render them as HTML. Many people care. If you aren't including a plain text version of your email, you aren't following email best practices.
967.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> a service which you use with your real identity registered, but the certs it gives you are untracked to still allow for possibility of being anonymous. The best you can do is pseudonymity. If the attestations are completely anonymous t
968.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> In this case, nobody was actually being sold a defective product. Salesforce is very careful to “safe harbour” their statements about future products and their actual customers know that. I don't see any of that in the linked blog
969.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Not sure why this is being downvoted. This is a factually accurate description of an issue highly relevant to the topic. If you aren't aware of the specifics, research "qualified immunity" , a legal doctrine that was not pass
970.
by shkkmo 3y ago
I don't think that such a "sweet spot" necessarily exists for every company. Many of the companies depend on these illegal business practices to be profitable. If you levy fines that make those illegal practices unprofitable,
971.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> And then the librarian who wrote "this change is a real downgrade", their reason for why its a downgrade didn't make this blog post. Why not? Maybe because the reason why they felt that way was "For one, there is no
972.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> it's quite obvious that it instantly changes the cost of running these massive AI models as well as the cost of doing highly detailed FEM simulations. This seems pretty overstated. Developing the tooling to build chips takes years
973.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Then why don't we pass that law?
974.
by shkkmo 3y ago
The negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that so your justification falls flat. I also really don't see the economic
975.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Drone strikes on call centers would punish the poor employees with little to no power for the unethical choices of their bosses. You should be ashamed of this kind of call for violence, even if you intended it as a joke.
976.
by shkkmo 3y ago
What you've done it taken a small, irrelevant detail and used it to ignore the entire rest of the article, including interviews with librarians who talk about how much worse the new request system is. You don't engage at all with
977.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Why can't we just start putting the CEOs of robocall companies that break the law in jail?
978.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Perhaps if you re-read the article you'd catch more of the facts. Overdrive and Libby are two apps from the same company. That company, Overdrive, has a monopoly and makes money charging libraries money to provide a service to that lib
979.
by shkkmo 3y ago
I have to say your final paragraph seems very off-base. Tone issues were started by diogocp with "complete nonsense" and were only slightly increased by light_hue in their response by calling that "rude". You're the
980.
by shkkmo 3y ago
You are the one violating the HN guidelines by dredging up old off-topic comments and derailing the conversation. If you feel like an account deserves a ban for some reason, an email to dang is the correct response. Off-topic comments at no
981.
by shkkmo 3y ago
There is a pretty good evidence that making a drug illegal may reduce usage rates, but it does this at the costs of increasing the amount that is used in a sitting. This increase in binging leads to a higher rate of addiction and ODs. So wh
982.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea No they didn't. > How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a rac
983.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> If such sums weren't significant, they'd not bother operating in Norway in the first place. Not necessarily, given network effects it can be advantageous to operate it some markets at a loss if the network effects from that m
984.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Then you are incompetent at your job.
985.
by shkkmo 3y ago
>None of this is going away anytime soon. Unless we make it illegal. Then it'll be restricted to shady enterprises for whom the legal risk doesn't matter.
986.
by shkkmo 3y ago
> Specifically, I care whether you're a person who owns a dog and spends money on high-quality/luxury dog goods. Thing is, that is non of your god damned business. You can show your ads next to dog videos or whatever other cont
987.
by shkkmo 3y ago
It absolutely is used to reduce payouts. The fact that it limits the potential for very large punitive jury judgments is an argument made by supporters of the texas two step. It's basically a way of forcing everyone suing you into some
988.
by shkkmo 3y ago
Meanwhile, J&J gets to keep paying dividends to shareholders like they have throughout the process. Funny how that works.
989.
by shkkmo 3y ago
The court did not conclude that, or anything about J&J's intentions. The court concluded that the subsidiary was not actually bankrupt and so couldn't justify J&J's attempt to consolidate all the lawsuits against it i
990.
by shkkmo 3y ago
>In this case, filing for bankruptcy created fairness among victims, they did not have to be first or fifth to get the right damages, every victim was treated equal. It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek high

More ›