snet0

15 ms·

121.
by snet0 5y ago
Sure, but do you not think Netflix would have issues acquiring content if users could right click->save everything they viewed?
122.
by snet0 5y ago
Okay, if I misread that I apologise. I'm not following the rumors, so it seemed like "oh looks like Apple's coming out with another something something and needs to update the spec to handle it". I think my point remains
123.
by snet0 5y ago
While I do accept the point, I think part of this is just that Google and Apple are the companies doing a large amount of work in the browser space. Because of this, they are likely to be the companies who see the hole that should be filled
124.
by snet0 5y ago
In addition to the privacy concerns with native applications, they're almost always insecure. One thing that is nice about modern browsers is that (despite Safari's leisurely update cycle) they are actually relatively secure, as f
125.
by snet0 5y ago
Assuming I'm reading your snark correctly, is this really such a bad thing? People here seem to have a rose-tinted view of the internet's past, before Google, Apple et al. "abused" their browsers' position to push c
126.
by snet0 5y ago
My understanding is basically that DRM is the technology that permits the existence of Netflix and similar. Perhaps I just lack a strength of principle, but I don't see why you'd remove one of the most-enjoyed aspects of the inter
127.
by snet0 5y ago
I never really looked into Quota, do people get paid for answers or something? Half the answers I read seem like someone just compiling random things they found in related Google searches.
128.
by snet0 5y ago
I think we're not disagreeing, if we were before. Adding limits to functions without rationale other than avoiding infinities is arbitrary and unscientific. Given that we assume that the universe doesn't actually have the capaci
129.
by snet0 5y ago
I don't even know if this qualifies as a lazy effort, as that implies some effort was put in. This was an effort-free implementation. The user, as usual, pays the price.
130.
by snet0 5y ago
We have a very precise (although one might struggle to describe it) idea of what qualifies as a human leg. The number 2 is basically defined (at least in common usage) as the number of things you have when you have one thing and then anothe
131.
by snet0 5y ago
Exactitude in general is impossible, though. We assume that the charge on an electron is a constant, but there are limits to the precision. An infinite value is theoretically testable. It simply implies that for however long you make your r
132.
by snet0 5y ago
Well, it doesn't really show something travelling faster than light, any more than if you shot a laser at the moon and looked at the speed of the dot on the surface as you moved it through some angle. The dot can move arbitrarily fast,
133.
by snet0 5y ago
You were talking about exactitude in space, rather than charge. >Studying something that doesn't exist is unscientific What about things that could exist, might exist, or even aren't expressly forbidden from existing? The
134.
by snet0 5y ago
It doesn't have to be teleporting. Any superluminal travel can break causality. As I linked elsewhere, Sean Carroll has a solo podcast episode[0] where he talks about a few methods by which time travel could be imagined to be possible,
135.
by snet0 5y ago
Tell that to Plato. Honestly I think that's a continuous claim, and comes down to differences in understanding. I can certainly have 7 of some object, does the 7-ness exist in the collection? Not really, but what about another phenomen
136.
by snet0 5y ago
That's just because you use the word "exact", though. Exactitude doesn't exist in the universe as we understand it. There's a difference between something not being instantiated in this universe and being unscientif
137.
by snet0 5y ago
Laws in the physics sense don't govern, though, they describe. It's akin to saying moral laws don't decide what's immoral, they simply describe it. Given that, "laws of physics" are certainly describable. We
138.
by snet0 5y ago
If you're interested in some simplified-but-still-roughly-rigorous discussion about the physics of time travel/causality, Sean Carroll did a solo episode of his podcast where he talked about a few different ideas in this space. h
139.
by snet0 5y ago
You can certainly imagine going faster than light, but that doesn't mean it's possible. Saying it could be possible is basically saying "our understanding of physics could be wrong". Technically correct, but at that
140.
by snet0 5y ago
Is this not some kind of sneaky simultaneity? You're imagining some absolute "this has happened" where, in your perspective, it hasn't yet. I'm interested if anyone qualified could fix this issue for me. When we loo
141.
by snet0 5y ago
I know it's a joke but it means nearby universe as distinct from distant universe, if anyone is actually confused.
142.
by snet0 5y ago
My colleagues (UK) when I worked in a small grocery shop thought I was crazy for drinking water instead of coke or something. And for lunch breaks everyone would buy at least one chocolate bar. And then of course everyone would complain a
143.
by snet0 5y ago
"Good Old Neon" reads entirely different in the context of his suicide. It's almost a different story when you put it in that space.
144.
by snet0 5y ago
You're saying that China won't launch a nuclear first strike against an unused silo based on a joking email? Interesting commentary.
145.
by snet0 5y ago
The vaccine is effectively a small part of the virus, for the immune system to learn to recognise. The virus itself has many parts for which an immune response can be developed.
146.
by snet0 5y ago
Saying the feature is "buried somewhere in settings" feels like a biased framing. Settings are in the settings menu. This is a setting so it's in the settings menu. I assume it's categorised in some way that makes sense.
147.
by snet0 5y ago
Only benefits Apple?
148.
by snet0 5y ago
> Forums shouldn't be policing content Why not?
149.
by snet0 5y ago
Nobody has a right to be heard. He has a right to speak. People like Rogan have a megaphone and are choosing who to give it to. Would you choose Alex Jones?
150.
by snet0 5y ago
Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump? Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its drivin

More ›