zero_iq @ zero_iq @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

90

Joined

2 yr. ago

Every US state has official state foods, sometimes getting as specific as state vegetable, state dessert, state grape, etc.

This list should give you a head start: list of official US state foods

Back in the day, I discovered I could i) print over IR to our office's HP laser printer from my Psion organiser, ii) print control codes from the built-in OPL language to change the display message on the printer. I would occassionaly send messages like "insert coin", "too much paper", "grammatical error", etc. when colleagues were printing.

Have you been to an IMAX? Every seat can see the whole screen.

I don't understand this comment... Why do you think I'm implying that people can't see the whole screen from every seat? I don't see how it's related to what I said.

I was simply jokingly observing the irony of sitting at the back to reduce the size of the screen in your field of vision because you have difficulties observing a wide field -- a problem that is exacerbated by going to a larger screen in the first place.

So you pay extra to go to the largest screen possible, then sit as far away as you can to make it small enough for you to see? That seems... suboptimal.

Open source software is also notably lacking from the impact assessment documents, but I suspect this is because it was intended to not impact open source software at all. It seems the legislation intends to exclude open-source software, but doesn't clearly and unambiguously exclude open source software that is developed or contributed to in a commercial setting (e.g by paid contributors).

I think the wording seems clear enough to determine the intent, but the ambiguity surrounding the "commercial activity" part might necessitate trial (which nobody wants to risk), or might lead to poor implementation of this directive in the laws of member states. I think we should be campaigning to improve the wording, not reject it outright.

Ah, OK. So it seems it's a case of the spirit of the text not matching the precise technical wording used. IMO, the legislation clearly intends to exclude freely-distributable open-source software, but the issue lies with what constitutes a commercial activity. (I've not yet checked the rest of the document to see if it clearly defines "commercial activity" in relation to the legislation.)

TBH, it seems that what is needed here is a clarification and tightening up of definitions, not wholesale rejection of the legislation.

Trademarks and copyright are intellectual property.

Why is everyone up in arms about this?

The legislation specifically excludes open source software. Has nobody in this discussion actually read the proposed legislation?

From the current proposal legislation text:

In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.

There is also a clause that states those using open source software in commercial products must report any vulnerabilities found to the maintainer.

He denies this but hasn’t sued the person making the allegation.

He can't, because it was said under parliamentary privilege. An MP (in this case, Chris Bryant) cannot be sued for statements made in Parliament.

I'm not going to defend Farage (I think he's a slimeball) but the fact he hasn't sued is not evidence either way.

You are partially correct. The general public also has protection written into in law in Canada (Yukon and Nunavut being current exceptions).

From the Ontario "Good Samaritan Act (2001)", Section 2:

Protection from liability

2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[12]

What you are saying really only applies to people who are rendering aid in some kind of professional capacity, or for remuneration. (So a higher bar of competence should be met if it is part of your job to give such assistance, as the above text would not apply to you if it is your job.)

If you are simply helping someone with no expectation of payment, you are not liable for any damages due to your negligence, unless you are acting with gross negligence. And educating yourself in first aid would be a good first step in avoiding negligence.

Gross negligence requires recklessness, or purposeful ignoring of health and safety. If you are acting with good intentions and with due consideration for the health and well being to the best of your ability, it is difficult to see how the bar for gross negligence would be met.

Such "good samaritan" laws are a common feature in many countries around the world, although it should be noted that there are regions (including some in Canada: Yukon and Nunavut) where such laws do not exist.

Signal comes from the "chip-on-board" under the black epoxy blob. Looks like a circuit for simple sample or electronic tune playback. You press the (now damaged) button, and it plays a tune or sound sample(s) out of the speaker.

That article is absolute trash. It's a pulsar. There are no "perplexing messages". They don't "strongly believe" that it's aliens or any deliberate communication at all.

The article is just making stuff up.

If you go to the source of the story, The Mirror (the fucking Mirror!), despite the misleading sensationalism, even that points out that the scientisits ruled out artificial sources within hours of its discovery, concluding it is a neutron star or white dwarf.

You really have to do a shit job at reporting to do worse than the Mirror!

Fair point. And yes, there's just so many ways he could have made money from third party apps and their users without trashing them. The AI explanation just didn't make any sense to me at all.

A business brain would have followed the money. He's just following half-witted ideas/ego. I don't think he really realises or understands what he had.

In that case the admin of the instance you registered with has disabled community creation for some reason. You can either contact the admin where you registered, or sign up with another instance that does allow community creation

You know the phrase "business genius"?

Spez is a business idiot.

He's had money thrown at him from VCs, thousands of people generating content, and administering content for free, sitting on a goldmine of data and goodwill and Community spirit, and he's managed to lose money, burn bridges, and fuck up the whole deal all for thppe sake of chasing a few dollars of API revenue and a bruised ego. All while others make millions and gain significant community support using the exact same data with business models he could have just copied or shared in.

He's had every opportunity. He's fucked it up at every step.

Business idiot.

Fire spez.

If you're on desktop, click Create Community at the top of the page.

If you're on mobile, click the menu icon (top right), then click Create Community.

Best case scenario for reddit, I think, would be for its IPO to fail, spez and investors call it quits, and it eventually ends up maintained by a not-for-profit foundation in the way that, say, Wikipedia or Blender is.

Either that or it dies, its database published or scraped, and ends up accessible through archive.org or something similar.

Don't forget pipes: |

cmd1 | cmd2 | cmd3

...will run all 3 in parallel: cmd3 can be processing cmd's output while cmd2 is generating new data, and so on.

How much parallism actually occurs depends on the nature of the processing being done, but it is a powerful technique, which can be combined with the others to great effect.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. And your right to say what you want doesn't mean people will want to listen to it, nor that they shouldn't express their disapproval by whatever means they wish.

Try it and find out. If you get banned, start your own instance. People will be free to join you, ignore you, and/or defederate you as they see fit.

I took a brief look at the code for this recently.

Hot is similar to the old reddit ranking. A combination of upvote score with a decay over time, starting from when the post was made.

Active is essentially the same ranking, but the fade away is based on the time of the most recent comment on the post. Any new comment will bump it back up, resetting the timer. There is a 48 hour cut off, so posts don't keep getting bumped up indefinitely.