struant

6 ms·

1.
by struant 7mo ago
Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that. It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is ho
2.
by struant 2y ago
How about just "Don't allow advertising period"?
3.
by struant 2y ago
Why is doing a task with a machine suddenly objectionable when the same task performed by humans is perfectly fine?
4.
by struant 2y ago
Unless the purpose and value of the video is solely distribution of the copyrighted music it should be protected fair use. If copyright holders don't like it they are free to not license their music to be played in public ever.
5.
by struant 2y ago
That is really good point. The court is basically giving them permission to do this, by asking them to not have net neutrality.
6.
by struant 2y ago
Their curation blows. The whole premise of having a canonical answer to a question is dumb. Most programming languages and libraries are always in flux. The whole nature of many questions changes over time. StackOverflow is a tyranny of med
7.
by struant 2y ago
They can't fine starlink if they have no presence in their country. They already did those other things and people are still using starlink systems in their countries. There is no other recourse for them.
8.
by struant 2y ago
Starlink can see the packet traffic. They ought be able to analyze which dishes are on each side of the conflict. Even if it isn't perfectly accurate, a rough blacklist would help Ukraine tremendously (by hurting Russia). And if Ukrain
9.
by struant 2y ago
I am not belittling them. Just recognizing the fact they have no power to enforce anything on starlink. It's not about what they "deserve". It is about what is physically possible. I would love it if pirate internet via satel
10.
by struant 2y ago
What is an African country going to do about enforcing anything to do with starlink other than confiscate hardware within their borders? Whine to the UN that someone is competing with their local telecom?
11.
by struant 2y ago
You must have read a different article, because "starlink doesn't like it" is the only justification or explanation the article offers for their stance. And that is neither a valid justification nor an explanation.
12.
by struant 2y ago
Then it is up to the local government to confiscate their starlink hardware. There is no reason for starlink to respect every single legal jurisdiction's rules. They only need to deal with wherever they connect to ISPs.
13.
by struant 2y ago
Why do they give a damn if people are subscribing in the US and using their product in Africa? If anything they should be using their position to obliterate the whole idea of region-locking anything.
14.
by struant 2y ago
Why do you think the consent of someone relaying information matters in the slightest when it comes to what people do with that information?
15.
by struant 2y ago
You can also reduce your attack surface (dependencies).
16.
by struant 2y ago
I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won&#x
17.
by struant 2y ago
Is it mostly spam that makes you think moderation is necessary or is it something else? I ask because I have some ideas about how to implement a moderation-less reddit-alike. (I think I know how to eliminate spam)
18.
by struant 2y ago
In order for there to be a victim, the deep fake needs to be distributed and passed off as real. Creation alone harms exactly nobody.
19.
by struant 2y ago
Ineffective and barely enforced.
20.
by struant 2y ago
To clarify, I am only talking about direct financial benefit (capitalist ownership). But it has to be backdated to the owners at the time range when wrongdoing occurred. That way you can go after people who sold (for profit) their stock bef
21.
by struant 2y ago
The people benefiting from any behavior ranging from deceptive to criminal should be at least partially held liable (at minimum to not receive any profit whatsoever from those misdeeds). Will this change investor behavior and industry cultu
22.
by struant 2y ago
These fines should just be paid by shareholders (backdated to whoever profited from their misdeeds)
23.
by struant 2y ago
It is trivial for a wealthy person to be treated like everyone else. They just have to ditch their money. Unless they want do that, they can endure extensive scrutiny.
24.
by struant 2y ago
I am not aware of any laws in the US about selling books that are only text (no pictures) to minors. The only "banned books" lists apply to school libraries/librarians. I cannot possibly see what the justification would be fo
25.
by struant 2y ago
There is no requirement to make money to have a successful open source project. That being said. Monetizing open source is fine so long as people are up front about from the beginning. People are upset because switching the license is effec
26.
by struant 2y ago
Does it matter if you intended to do something nefarious all along, or if you just now saw an opportunity to be nefarious? All that matters is that you are doing something nefarious.
27.
by struant 2y ago
You don't have to be 18 to read smutty literature.
28.
by struant 2y ago
No more limits to financial liability. That is the legal solution. Nothing is going to get fixed until there are real consequences for the people with the power to fix things.
29.
by struant 2y ago
Sounds like a problem with Rust. Not a problem with async/await.
30.
by struant 3y ago
Or you don't hear about the methods they are using for deanonymizing because they would get the cases thrown out of a court. Warrantless wiretapping and the like... And the private firm is just lying for them so law enforcement can do

More ›