Haskell packages in arch are dynamically, rather than statically, linked, which pulls in a large amount of transitive dependencies (reportedly in the neighborhood of a gigabyte). The maintainer has a pretty reasonable (to my eyes) explanation[1] as to why this is the case, but admittedly if I were an arch user I'd probably find it a bit annoying.
> Fernando Alonso said there was now "too much technology" involved in the series
> "That’s the problem that we have," [Max Verstappen] said. "These engines are so complicated[...]"
Am I the only one who raised an eyebrow reading this? Hasn't "technology" always been a big point of F1? Or do they think that only "software" is "technology"?
When you step on the loud paddle but computer says "No" although there is no reason to say "No", that's too much technology.
If you cannot drive in wet conditions without computer intervention because your electric engine applies too much torque for mortal humans to control, that's too much technology.
Agreed. It's misattributing quotes and talking about OpenBSD releases from more than a year ago as if they were upcoming releases. Something's seriously wrong with this article.
> So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a service that was meant to be free? No, thanks.
First of all - I suppose it should be very cheap. So, real humans will not pay much.
Second - why do u think that websites are meant to be free? They provide some service, so its a rather strange that the internet is so free (in both senses). I think, this freeiness is allowed to greatly speed up popularization. But for me is obvious that it can demand payment for service.
And third - service owner really meant it to be free, I don't see any problems with this in my idea. It can still provide free service.
I'm not saying websites can't demand payments for service, I'm just saying it's bad if it's a necessary fix for "scrapers are destroying the basic social contract of the web".
The internet is already like that, but for some reason the payment only extends as far as the recipient's ISP, not the actual recipient. Most senders pay a flat rate, but their ISP doesn't.
You don't need the "for me", it's implicit in it being an article written by someone in a casual setting. I'd argue the issue is that we as internet blog post readers treat these think pieces with more gravitas then they deserve as a baseline.
reply