1lint

I'm surprised by how much this publication reads like an advocacy piece for a specific viewpoint, rather than an objective review of existing literature. Just from reading the paper, it is clear that there are many experts in the field that take the opposing viewpoint that is being attacked in the paper, especially considering that their hypotheses have been published in widely circulated textbooks.

When it comes to research publications in general, I very much prefer to hear an objective, good faith presentation of the major viewpoints, with the author taking an opinionated but measured take in the conclusion as they review the overall weight of the literature. I'm sure there are issues with this "triune brain" model, but at a certain level every model is inaccurate; the real question is whether a model is useful in its framework, and the answer has a degree of subjectivity such that I do not think it is fair to categorically reject the perspectives of opposing experts in the field.

On a more general note, a human eating a vegetable is a predatorial relationship, and like any prey, the vegetable will evolve defenses against such predation. Obviously the vegetable can't run away, so it produces compounds that are harmful against its human predators. Artificial selection through farming may reduce the harmful compounds, but constitutes a small fraction of their relevant evolutionary history.

On the other hand, we have the opposite relationship with fruits. When our ancestors ate fruits, they played a pivotal role in facilitating the plant's reproductive fitness by dispersing the seeds, at times with the excellent complimentary fertilizer that is human excrement. In this case, the plant has an evolutionary incentive to produce more nutritious fruits to encourage such human consumption.

There are a lot of "vegetables" that are actually botanical fruits such cucumbers, zucchini, tomato, etc. (note they all contain seeds). They are much better alternatives than true vegetables (spinach/kale) for juicing if you are trying to avoid sugar or somehow don't like sweet juice.

It also doesn't sound right to me to refer to liquified vegetables as "juice", when I've long thought the term refers to the liquid produced from squeezing a fruit (not to mention liquified spinach/kale sounds a bit nasty)

I recall someone in a similar situation who was able to convince IT to whitelist a cloud VM for testing website deployments. In addition to the website, this VM also hosted a wireguard server running on ports that happen to be commonly used for databases.

I don't think this article raises an actual issue (if it even exists).

If we take up the author's call to action in the title and introduction to "stop growing alfalfa" (presumably by outlawing it), then the corporations that grew alfalfa would obviously just find some other crop/product through which to effectively export water, albeit less efficiently, in which case the preexisting problems still exist but are even worse.

The real question is why these farmers/corporations are using their water to grow crops in the first place, when they could presumably be selling their water to consumers at much higher retail rates.

An immediately obvious answer would be that the costs of transporting/distributing this water from the source to the consumer is greater than the profit margin, in which case there isn't even a problem to begin with.

If the issue is regulation restricting corporations from selling/distributing their water to consumers, then it should be an obvious win for the politicians to fix: their corporate lobbyists get more money selling water at higher rates, while their voters get to buy water at cheaper rates. Either way, the article doesn't even mention any regulations at issue.

If the justification for criminalizing a drug is its propensity to cause societal damage, then by far the most important drug to ban is alcohol. Heroin addiction may promote theft and property damage, but that doesn't even come close to the mayhem, permanent injury and death caused by drunk driving accidents (as well as the social service costs of managing our country's subpopulation of alcoholics). Because alcohol remains legal, I believe less harmful drugs, including many if not all of the drugs decriminalized by Oregon, should be legal as well.

> "I guess these things would all be prevented and/or prosecuted, rather than the drugs themselves" I agree with this statement. Criminalizing hard drug use simply because it is associated with behaviour causing societal damage is not only inconsistent with the legality of alcohol use, it is also a slippery slope to justifying far more insidious laws. For example, a similar justification could be used to criminalize violent tv shows/movies/video games if the government believes consumption of such media is associated with societal harm.

The obvious solution is to simply criminalize the acts, such as theft and property damage, that actually harm others/society, rather than indirect upstream actions such as drug use. This "Oregon experiment" involves far more than just decriminalizing drug use, but also (effectively) decriminalizing many other domains of crime such as retail theft, daylight robbery, urban camping, property damage, etc. not unlike what we have here in SF.

This brings back memories of first playing civ5, which used a hexagonal grid

Another reason to include commit ids in the url when fetching files from external repos. I think you should do this anyways in case the external repo maintainer makes a change that silently breaks your build script

I agree it seems like a disproportionate act to take given the situation as the author described it, but this certainly does seem like the kind of scenario that involves a lot of context that goes unmentioned.

One explanation for this sequence of events is that the conference planners had since found a new compelling topic reflective of the project's direction to be covered in a keynote speech, in which case the natural topic to replace is one that discusses a "possible"/hypothetical idea. I'm sure there was a better way for leadership to handle this, in particular around communicating their intentions, but this shortcoming seems much more likely a case of incompetence rather than malice towards the speaker, given the lack of information to support the latter.

Ah okay I see now you were referring to failure to sanitize inputs/outputs in the original comment. I don't know if this oversight occurs more often when using string templating, but I'm pretty sure this was already a problem long before string templating came into practice.

By your argument, everyone using string templating for HTML has bad/nonexistent web security. I disagree.

If we don't care about the UX, then it would be more "convenient" for the developer to just not write the program in the first place.

Using string templating makes the DX better without compromising UX, since users just see the rendered output. Implementing bad/nonexistent web security also makes the DX easier since there's simply fewer features to implement, but this obviously has negative consequences on UX when folks have their accounts/credentials easily stolen.

To your first question, 100% yes given that you've accused me for being condescending against programmers and hence the majority of users on this site for no reason. Then you accuse me covering up a "mistake" by deleting a comment that I did not. In fact there isn't even an option to delete comments that have been replied to, which you admit to doing above.

Edit for the record: these were our comments that are hidden unless turning showdead on

1 point by 1lint 2 days ago [flagged] | root | parent | prev | next [–]

If I was dismissive of programmers I wouldn't be on this site.

ESTheComposer 2 days ago [flagged] [dead] | root | parent | next [–]

That's not even close to what my comment was about. Reread it please

In that case I am calling you out for lying to slander me. For the record, what is the mistake and comment you are claiming I made?

Thanks, hopefully violating copyright in Japan doesn't come with draconian prison sentences.

What law was he actually charged with breaking? I didn't see this mentioned in the article and it seems like this would be relevant information to include.

Anyways based on the available details, I'm surprised the police were even involved in what should really be a civil case between the rights holder and the YouTuber. I don't know if the Japanese public is safer or better off after this arrest.

Sorry to hear how this played out. If you have the time and are okay discussing it, consider publishing a write up of the incident. Shining a light on abuse/raise awareness of problems is the first step to getting them fixed.

I did not delete any comment. Most likely you cannot see my comment because you flagged it.

I did not advocate for any reinterpretation of Section 230.

Loopholes in the law should be fixed by the legislature, not by misinterpreting the law as it is written.

I think this ruling is overall a good outcome, but one loophole I see emerging around Section 230 protections is that social media sites are free to censor/shadowban content according to their ambiguous and arbitrarily enforced TOS. This allows them to favor user content they find agreeable, thus implicitly promoting their own viewpoints while still hiding behind Section 230 protections.

For example if a hypothetical billionaire acquirer of a social media site wanted to (implicitly) promote a cryptocurrency project, he could shadowban negative comments against the project, leaving comments in favor of the project to dominate on the site. At the same time, Section 230 would still shield his company from liability for those comments in favor of the project. This creates a situation in which the social media is in essence promoting the project, but in a roundabout way that shields them from liability. I can see this being especially problematic as it is applied to influencing elections.

In my opinion, Section 230 protections should come with some obligation to respect the principles of free speech.

> Cameras don't "generate" an image, if they didn't they'd have the same copyrightability issue that AI generators have

Please elaborate on your statement above. How would you characterize the method by which cameras produce images, and with respect to copyright law, how does this differentiate camera produced images from images produced by other machines?

Yes I will take you up on the offer for these case names you mentioned. I think it will be interesting to read up on them, in light of the current copyright discussion around AI image generation, which I believe to be akin to photography due to the shared degree of reliance on a machine to generate images.

Warhol was specifically commissioned to work on the photograph by a magazine, the photograph was not chosen by Warhol.

The point I am making is that I believe photography to entail less artistic expression than other forms of art such as painting or in this case, coloring. Saying "pointing and clicking" may be too dismissive, but I am used to hearing this sort of language used to describe AI image generation prompting, which I believe photography is more akin to, than it is to other art forms due to the degree of reliance on a machine.

I understand there can be a lot of depth to photography, likewise there can be a lot of depth to AI image prompting beyond just typing a prompt, both require high degrees of skill to master. But in general, I believe these forms of image generation to entail less artistic expression than the other arts.

My feeling is that Andy Warhol's creation entailed greater effort, and certainly greater artistic expression, than Goldsmith's act of snapping a photograph of Prince. I guess what I really take issue with is that taking a photograph entitles one to copyright protection, when the image is directly created by a machine (the camera), while all the photographer does is point the camera and click.

In fact the USPTO recently opined against granting copyright for images generated by a machine (AI model) in response to someone's prompt (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-05321.pdf). I believe applying this same standard (whether the standard is right is an entirely separate question) to photography should also preclude photos from copyright, because there is more artistic expression involved in prompting than there is in pointing a camera.

The author wasn't deceived, in fact no one even tried to deceive him. Rather, a guy offering to help clearly communicated his intentions, so that the author was able to make an informed decision to decline that help.

From the very limited information presented, it's not clear to me why the author would judge this offer to be a selfish act, or why this anecdote would support his conclusion to "beware offers of help".

Anyone have a link to the post the author referenced here? "A couple of weeks ago, someone else <posted> his desire to help code Xnet, and he included his vision of the direction it should go" (emphasis added)

The way this story was presented makes me curious to see the dialog (if there was any) between the author and the guy who offered to help.

I think some of the disagreement comes from lack of context. $15 is certainly not a good wage in the Bay Area which I presume is disproportionately represented on this site, but it is a lot better in other parts of the country (subject of story lives in Kansas). After all a good chunk of the world population lives sustainably (by the standards of human history) on single digit dollar income per day

I think in the case of "serverless" we still share a common understanding of what the term means, even if the term itself is misleading. This "comprised of" issue is different in that it can easily cause misunderstanding between archaic and modern users of the phrase, where meaning is inverted.

That's an amusing anecdote, though I find it bothersome the sysadmin failed to correctly implement the echo command

I think the point you're making is that orientation of the image is arbitrary, and the original commenter agrees that's the case for one eye: "If we had only one eye, there would be no issue, the image would appear as a continuous image, just flipped around."

But we have two eyes, so if you directly connect the two inverted images observed by each retina, there would be a discontinuity in the middle of the joined image (peripheral light from the outer sides of each eye would be mapped to the middle of the joined retinal image). The original commenters point was that criss crossing the neural connections from the retina would resolve this discontinuity, allowing the brain to process a continuous image.