Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Scarblac's commentslogin

No, that would make it even less likely that they obey the law.

Their legality is very questionable given all the likely copyright infringement going on, and a state can't really ignore that.

States are the things which can ignore that, and I'm pretty sure US and China already do. No state is going to respect copyright if they think its future is at stake, and apparently even Netherlands thinks the future is at stake.

(Of course states can ignore copyright in a legally polite manner, such as asserting that training on all published material in the National Library is fair game)


I interpreted as saying he knows a lot about different kinds of ideas / memories / things in the head.


Because you're doing it voluntarily.


Agree. But, sadly, we live in a world in which so often what is obvious needs to be stated.


Did I hallucinate several years of discourse about volunteer work on the internet should be paid? And that lefty types were yelling about how billionaire corps should compensate volunteer work because they clearly had money?

Something starting from Reddit mods?


Those conversations have definitely happened and while I have no clue what the lefty types settled on, in my opinion such internet volunteers should lose money.


I don't know if you read it but I've never heard such a thing and i do read the lefty sites sometimes.


Sometimes but I've never seen commenting counted as work.


You can only be in check or checkmate when it's your turn though.


And actual war, given the threats to Greenland.

But especially that Microsoft blocked the work email of the ICC lead prosecutor for political reasons, that has all alarm bells ringing.


Given how bad the US military performed against Iran, its pretty clear that any hostilities started by the US against NATO, would finish with a takeover of Washington within...2 weeks...


What makes you say that?

Where does this weird expectation come from that you can basically achieve your goals in a 2 week air campaign?

If the US wanted to they could probably do a lot of damage but, as you can see in Ukraine, taking over a country is a whole different thing. Unless you're willing to go in with the army and are willing to lose a LOT of people. And even then it'll take months or years for a single country


> Where does this weird expectation come from that you can basically achieve your goals in a 2 week air campaign?

From every US administration that’s started a war since about 1945.


Even if that fantasy was true in any way, the US can do enough damage to European digital systems to utterly cripple society on day 1.


And of course the actions in Iran and Venezuela, demonstrating that even the most braindead threats aren't just empty bluffing.


Nice thing is we can render names in English however we want too!


That said, it also has all the self help faults. It repeats itself a lot, is full of happy anecdotes that repeat the same thing yet again, and could have fit in a chapter.


I find that I don't necessarily mind when a book repeats itself, and a good helping of anecdotes can help a point get across. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me." Trying to distill a book down to the minimum logically equivalent length is like eating the smallest possible portion of a supplement one time and then wondering why it doesn't do anything for you.


No, we're very resilient bastards, we're going to let the huge majority of species go extinct before we go ourselves. We're already in a mass extinction event and we're just getting started.


I had to replace my previous phone because my banking app dropped support for that Android version, and was going to stop working. The hardware was fine.

(I always buy phones in the cheapest tier, so that happens sooner)


Would it be cheaper in the long run to buy a newer phone less often? Get a "this year flagship" and use it for 5 years rather than a couple year old model and use it for 2-3?


A flagship is ~1000, a good enough phone is ~200. So, no.


Those cheap phones are made out of garbage and are chock-full of bloatware and spyware. This also applies to Samsung flagships so I guess more expensive doesn't always mean better.


Not necessarily. I bought a 150 EUR Xiaomi for my son 1,5 years ago. The software is pretty okay, the thing is plenty fast, the screen looks good and battery life is great! The camera is not so great, but hey..


I don't think so, this was the first time it happened like that.


No. You get a 2 year old flagship phone for $200-300 outright, instead of $1500+

Samsung also makes the A-series Galaxies which are a pretty solid mid-tier phones that are supported for years, too.


That's just plain bullshit? I just checked my local second hand marketplace, and 2 year old flagship models seem to go for about 35-50% of the current equivalent newest model price.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: