ralferoo

Everyone else gets paid for their work when they do it. They can even invest the money like everyone else. When you've hit it big with a creative work you are set for life. But when I build a house for you, I get paid once.

This is fine for transactional work, where it's very clear - you do/make something and sell it, perhaps a carpenter selling a table or whatever.

It completely fails if, for example, an author spends 4 years unpaid writing their latest book, and after the first copy is sold anybody is free to duplicate the words from that book without giving the author a penny for that work. One of the specific reasons for copyright is to ensure that the author is granted exclusivity over sale of the works, such that they can earn a fair wage to compensate for the 4 years of their life without any income at all. How us it unfair that if that author lives another 50 years and people are happy paying for the book for the next 50 years, the author should continue receiving money for it, rather than just some unrelated party whose only skill is being able to scan and reprint the book for basically the cost of the paper?

It's also fair to allow copyright after the author's death, because their children also should be allowed to benefit from their parent's work too. In most families, the parents want to pass on a legacy to their children. Why should an author be any different? Or are you saying if someone owned property that provided a monthly rental income, on their death the children shouldn't be allowed to inherit that property or the income stream?

If you say that the parent needs to earn all the income from the novel themselves and only that can be passed to the children, what if someone has spent 4 years writing a novel, and is killed in a traffic accident a day after launch day? Should their children not be allowed to profit from their parent's work just because they died before the income stream was realised? What about the 4 years of hardship the entire family endured?

Corporations just extend this thinking, because legally a corporation is considered to be a legal person. If you're making a film that requires lots of capital and many participants, there's a lot of investment in that production. In this case, it makes sense that the individual artists sign over their rights to the work they do for a salary to the company (if they don't like a paid job, they can always go and create their own works or set up their own company, etc) and equally, the investors need some time to recoup the investment they made. If we didn't permit this, then simply put, the vast majority of films would never have existed. Society would be far worse off.

This attitude reminds me a lot of Stallman, and honestly, I fundamentally disagree with his absolutism about the ethics of being paid to write closed-source software.

Sure, there are many people who are happy to write software in their spare time, and are sufficiently well off from another income stream that they can afford to not profit from the software they produce (although I suspect that the vast majority of open-source programmers also derive their primary income from closed-source software).

But a simple fact of life is that people need to eat, find shelter, etc, and it's reasonable to expect that if you have a particular skill that others don't that you should be able to exchange the products of that skill for money from the people who recognise that skill and want the products of it (whether it be software, books, artworks, music, whatever).

Sure, there are some people who would continue producing the art/writings/music anyway in their free time because that's what motivates them in life. But what a shame it is when someone can only do that for a few hours per week because they need to work a full time job which doesn't utilise their talent just to put food on the table. Perhaps they'll choose to live a meagre life, and work for the "sake of subject" and die in poverty, but most won't. That doesn't reflect on the quality of the work, just how much hardship the creator is prepared to endure.

I'd never heard of Arthur Schopenhauer before, but reading his Wikipedia suggests that he came from a wealthy family and he never had to worry about money. Perhaps his argument just boils down to class at the end of the day, and that only authors from a well off background should be given a voice. But like I say, I don't know anything about him and he sounds like a well regarded philosopher, so I'm probably well off base.

Reworking that a bit, suppose you work hard in your 20s and have a skill that many others don't have and can command a good wage for your work. You can make plenty from it, so why spend your time in your 40s and 50s doing more work when you can drink whiskey or play video games or live in a cabana on a beach?

Why can e.g. programmers profit from their specialism and then have early retirement, but e.g. popular singers or authors not do the same if they wanted? Why shouldn't they be allowed to continue to make money from the original work they've created that nobody else could / did? Why should a programmer be allowed to leave a huge legacy to their children in the form of vested stocks, but artists not be allowed to in the form of continuing royalties?

Creating works of art that people want is as much of a specialised skill as e.g. programming, but the payoff doesn't come as a large monthly paycheque, but as a small amount on each copy sold that you hope to recoup by selling more volume over time.

Would be be worse off as a society without Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Jungle Book, Mary Poppins, the Herbie series, and any of the many more recent films?

If anything these films are a great example of why copyright terms should be long, because those films are still culturally relevant today, 60-80 years after they're made, and that people are still willing to pay for them over newer films shows that the creators and their families still deserve to continue to get royalties from them.

Sure, film companies often make a quick buck from sequels, but it's interesting that copyright on characters is distinct from copyright on works.

If anything it's surprising that you're arguing something other than the usual issue that's brought up around Disney, which is that their older works frequently took stories that were specifically out of copyright, and then they vigourously pursued copyright on the films they made from those stories.

Limiting by total income disincentivises companies to spend heavily to produce e.g. films, plays, video games, whatever. At that point, you're effectively saying copyright is only sensible for things produced by a single unaided person.

Sadly, copyright term is the only sensible (and easily enforceable) metric, although whilst I'd agree that the term is currently too long, reducing it to shorter than the creator's lifetime can lead to other weird situations.

For instance, if copyright was just 20 years after something was created, a painting might have been created 20 years ago but never made public until later in their life, and so copyright has expired before they've ever tried to sell it. Maybe there was only public interest in their work later on in their career and suddenly their early work was now considered valuable.

Or if it's 20 years from the date something was made available to the public, then you could reset the clock by creating a slightly different work (e.g. a book where page 200 contained a spelling correction), etc. How would you decide the copyright term then? Would pages 1-199 and 201-end be out of copyright and only page 200 copyrighted?

And assuming we think lifetime of the creator makes sense, then we would need a different rule for companies, because companies can last forever. What we have right now, seems approximately the optimal solution in most cases.

About the only thing I'd change is when nobody knows who the copyright holder is, which is particularly an issue with old software. There really should be some way of legally distributing abandonware if nobody can prove that they own the copyright.

It needs some way of clearing all data. I chose "don't know" on calibration because I couldn't be bothered to try to work it out (but my mouse will be on the low end because it's just some random cheap mouse). Then, the training was ridiculous having to move my mouse miles between targets, but there's no way to change the initial calibration step. Not even in settings / data / delete.

I'm not really the target user though. I guess those who are will already know exactly how many DPI their mice are.

It's even easier to detect from that. From the project writeup Q&As: 'The firmware snoops for the string "password:xyz" and inhibits the write of "xyz". Otherwise, yes this would be very insecure.'

So detecting this drive is just a matter of writing "password:anything" to the drive, unmounting, remounting and checking the file you just wrote. If it's not what you wrote, then you have detected the existence of this drive.

The parent comment was correct that if this was mitigated by testing if the key is valid then you can detect it by checking for timing differences between writing a sector that starts "password:" and one that doesn't. Moving the password check async just means that you run the risk of having the real password written to the SD card before it was detected.

If you buffer that sector from being written, then you might be able to detect it because the write was faster than expected, or if you write the modified version and go back and overwrite it with the original if the check fails, then you will slow down a different subsequent access, again which would be detectable. This would also invalidate one of the design goals of never keeping the password in memory, only the derived key.

Having a customizable prefix is possible, as the project is open source. Personally, I'd be tempted to make this possible on the base build by storing the prefix in the hidden area of the SD card.

Where did you get that the US emits 45x the UK?

From the GP [1], US emits 4,632,164,876 and UK emits 292,419,359 tonnes CO2. Which, sorry my bad, is actually only 15x. Looks like I did the ratio of China to UK which is 45x.

But either way, it shows that comparing total emissions is stupid because it's biased against bigger countries. Emissions per capita is a far more sensible metric.

Also it blames people in the US for energy consumed here to manufacture which includes exports for people abroad.

Sure, but the same can be said about China, in fact I'd argue even more so. As a resident of the UK, the majority of things I buy is made in China, almost nothing from the US.

The US's per capita emissions are not even far away from other similar nations.

Sure, but they are higher than China's, which was the point I was making to refute the GP. The only reason China's total emissions is 3x US is because its population is 4x US.

Anyone playing this game is just looking to create a narrative about good and bad guys.

If you re-read what I wrote that you're replying to, you'll see that we agree on that.

It was the GP post that tried to compare China and US in terms of emissions, and deliberately chose total emissions to portray China as significantly worse than the US and getting worse year-on-year, while conveniently ignoring the population size differential and that the increase in emissions is still negligible compared to the overall difference, because it'd take 81 years for China to catch up with the US on emissions per capita. I then compared the US to the UK to show that comparing total emissions instead of per capita is stupid, because the population size matters.

But, as I said in the post you replied to - both countries can and should do much better, but as China isn't even in the top 10% of emissions per capita, this is a worldwide problem and trying to pin it all on China is disingenuous.

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...

But their actions are clearly no the actions of a country who “believes in climate change”.

I'd be willing to bet that you've not been to China. Shenzhen is a very green city, I'll go into that later, but also Beijing and Shanghai have historically had serious problems with smog in summer, and this has got significantly better in recent years as local government pushes companies towards renewable energy sources and close down coal power stations.

For example in Shenzhen, all buses and taxis have to be EV, and around 80% of all new privately owned cars are also EVs. That seems like a city that believes in climate change.

You've got vast swathes of desert covered by solar panels providing electricity further east (although sadly, a lot is waste due to transmission inefficiencies). That seems like a country that believes in climate change.

You've got a country that produces 80% of the world's solar panels, and has over 1/3 of the worldwide installation of solar panels. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.

You've got a country with massive windfarms and a net exporter of wind turbines. Combined, over 1/4 of all electricity in China comes from renewables. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.

You've got a country that uses a lot of battery storage to smooth power demand, and exports these units to pretty much everywhere because they're about the best you can get. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.

You've got a country that built the massive three gorges dam project, started in the 1990s and finished nearly a quarter of a century ago. That seems like a country that believes in climate change.

Sure, there's still a long way to go, and due to the massive energy demands, it still has coal power stations providing about half it's electricity generation needs. That needle is shifting over time, but you know what? It's still half coal and yet it still only has 2/3 the emissions per capita compared to the US. But even if it still has a long way to go, its actions clearly ARE the actions of a country that believes in climate change.

One way to beat this in terms of coding efficiency would be to use something like rANS (explanation [1], code [2]).

You would have a more complicated decoder with rANS though, even if you removed the frequency table lookup (because always 1/3) and you'd only produce one output at a time instead of 5 doing this with a lookup table.

It might be possible to use a combination of both techniques with e.g. a 16 bit accumulator, multiplying by 243 to get the value to lookup into bits 23-16 and then bias and shift the incoming 8 bits into the accumulator.

[1] https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/rans-with-static-pr...

[2] https://github.com/rygorous/ryg_rans

You seem to think China is the evil polluter here. Just sort by per capita, and you'll see it's not even in the top 10% most polluting per capita.

There are plenty of large (depending on your definition of large) countries above it. Not just US, Australia and Russia that you are excluding for some reason, but also Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Canada all have significantly developed economically important countries. And they all have GDP per capita much greater than China's. What's your rationale for excluding them? There's a whole host of smaller countries with higher GDP per capita than China between those I listed above and China on the CO2 per capita results.

We should agree that ALL countries should be working to reduce CO2 emissions. But it sounds like you have a strong US bias and given Trump not only denies that climate change is even a thing, has withdrawn from international agreements on reducing emissions and even tries to pressure other countries to burn oil instead of investing in windfarms, it seems a bit disingenuous to try to make out that China is the only country that needs to improve. Before commenting on the speck in someone else's eye, first remove the plank from your own, yadda yadda...

"big number bad" isn't a great way of analysing the data, because China has a massively larger population.

The US emits 49% more CO2 per capita than China. And even with the much larger rate of increase, 0.79% to US' 0.3%, it'll still require 81 years to catch up to the US per capita rate [0].

The US aren't the good guys here, not by any means. Compared to my country, for instance, the US' emissions are 3x per capita that of the UK. If you want to argue that we shouldn't be using per capita (although we absolutely should), then that's 45x the UK's CO2 emissions.

[0] log(13.59/9.13) / log(1.0049) = 81.4 years

Seems to just be a promotion for the Voronoi app, which it mentions multiple times.

The first image contains all the useful content of the entire article, but it's limited to only the top 25 countries when measuring tourists/population. Seems if you want to see the data for any other country (like you own for instance), you have to download this app to get the data.

The rest of the articles on this site also seem to just be promotional tools to push people to signing up for the app. Clicking on the link shows a handful of similar first images, and scrolling down you soon hit the limit of what you can see without subscribing and thereafter you can't ever recheck it. Ironic that I used up my entire free allowance just scrolling down trying to find out what this thing costs.

Vogon Poetry [1]?

[1] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Vogon_poetry

First I've heard of ATHD command. Pretty sure my modem would ignore anything after ATH, and if you did ATDT would fail without a dial tone. But obviously, you couldn't send them as one command, but as separate commands. That might work in the same packet, so +++ATH\nATDTxxx but I suspect that you'd probably need a lot of \n as padding to introduce sufficient delay after the ATH.

Physical mail costs money, but 80% of the mail I receive is junk mail that somebody has paid to send me.

Of the 20% of mail that is useful to me, it's still pretty much all just from corporations who have decided to send me a physical letter even though they have my e-mail - e.g. the water company sends me some brochure to somehow justify how much money they're charging by breaking down what they spend all their money on etc...

I get almost zero "real" mail from actual people nowadays. Now it costs £1.80 to post something first class and 91p second class, real mail is basically limited to birthday and Christmas cards. I myself send so few letters, than I still have a couple of stamps in my wallet that I technically bought 6 years ago when they cost 35% the current price (although they were replaced with barcode versions by sending them in to Royal Mail).

Although on Windows, the current directory is checked before PATH, unlike UNIX-based systems that require the current directory to be explicitly included in the PATH if that's the behaviour you want.

So for any repository with git.exe in the root, if you then ran another git command from a DOS prompt with the repo as your current directory then it would give the same bad outcome of running the git.exe from the repo.

I'm not saying that it's good that it's happening, but it doesn't seem like it's their bug to solve per se, it's just a feature of using Windows. Of course, they probably could work round it by parsing the PATH themselves and locating a git.exe that isn't in the current directory.

Not sure about whether it's the first to have a leading zero or not. Certainly the -04 at the end suggests it was one of the first in the 04- block, but then again most banks have multiple sort codes, so who knows.

I'm not really sure how these get allocated, but looking through some of my payment recipients, Revolut is also lowish in this block with 04-00-67, but also with leading zeros, Santander has 09-01-32 and 09-01-33, co-op has 08-92-99, Nationwide has 07-01-16, 07-08-06, 07-19-86.

That looks to me almost like potentially a bank can get a sort code block as large as just the first 2 digits, e.g. Nationwide which has been around for a long time and all seem to start 07-. But that doesn't explain then why Monzo and Revolut are both in the 04-00- block.

EDIT: it seems that sort codes are assigned by pay.uk [1] and Wikipedia has a surprising amount of information [2]. Most interestingly, originally banks were 2 digits long, and so each bank had their own 2 digit prefix, and the single digit banks had a zero appended, so e.g. NatWest was originally Westminster (6) and became 60-. There's a whole load of 04- sort codes for "Utility Banks" [3] and Monzo seems to have been the second such bank (BFC is before it, but 04-00-01 is unlisted, so maybe Monzo was the third).

[1] https://www.wearepay.uk/what-we-do/payment-systems/access-to...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_code

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_code#04_codes

Not investigated what framework it's using, but it looks like a mobile app compiled to WASM. It's just something I need to put up with I guess, it's just annoying when I need to generate a bunch of reports every year for my company end-of-year accounts, so it's not worth wasting time on trying to automate.

From what I can tell, Trump mostly doesn't like them because you can see some from his vanity golf course in Scotland. He has absolutely zero interest in the significant benefits they provide, he only cares about the fact he can see them from "his" land.

I remember when the first ones started appearing in the UK over 30 years ago and people were quick to complain about how ugly they looked. But actually, over time I think most people accept them now, and personally I think they're pretty cool. Most of the UK ones are actually off shore now - you can just about see them from the coast, but they're just small specks on the horizon at that distance. I think the biggest concern people have with them now is the belief that lots of birds get killed by them, but the reality is that actually many more birds die every year from flying into windows than get hit by turbine blades.

My pet peeve is in the "create a report" section of InvestEngine (useful for doing reports aligned to tax year). If you try to type a date at all, the year always ends up as 000n and no amount of typing numbers will get it to accept a 4 digit year (or even a 2 digit year starting 20). The only way to undo this state is to click today and then page through the years and months using the arrows on their stupid date widget.

Especially in the UK, bank sort codes are typically presented to the user as e.g. 04-00-04 by every banking app or website, but whenever you have to enter them (e.g. to pay someone else) they usually require you to not enter the dashes. Some of the most annoying sites limit the input to 6 characters but don't strip out the dashes, so you'd end up with 04-00- and then it complains.

And then there are the ones that implement it as 6 separate boxes, and these are the only fields in the form that auto advance to the next field on input and also often break delete if you want to undo the previous digit.

Yeah, apparently my views match others 85% of the time, but I thought it was funny about how my views of what is a vehicle differs a lot from other people on ones I thought would be not controversial.

Things like only 15% of people think a wheelchair is a vehicle but people seem evenly split on a bike being a vehicle or not. Even stranger 40% of people think a police car isn't a vehicle.

That to me shows that people aren't answering the question asked "is this a vehicle" but answering the subtext "should this be allowed in the park". Or in other words, they're trying to bend the concept of what is and isn't a vehicle to an inviolable rule rather than saying what is and isn't a vehicle (and some are tricky) and then amending the rule to fit. That is problematic as they're applying their own biases on the intention of the rule rather than understanding what the rule maker thought.

There's also some others where I answered overly literally, e.g. the plane over the park. In my jurisdiction, that wouldn't be considered to be in the park, and so I answered that it wasn't. If that plane had crash landed in the the park, then obviously it would be a vehicle and in the park. So, I wasn't answering based on whether it was a vehicle, but whether it was in the park. Equally, a lot of questions seem designed to include toys where I'd see no possible interpretation for them to be a vehicle, e.g. the toy car. I also happen to know that in my country, skates and foot-powered skateboards aren't legally considered to be vehicles, but bikes are, so I answered that way even if I personally think they should be classified as vehicles. And a tank is still a vehicle, even if it no longer has an engine it's just an inoperable vehicle.

Left-handedness does not seem to be purely genetic. Two left-handed parents have a left-handed child only 25% to 30% of the time. If one identical twin is left-handed, there’s only a 20% to 30% chance the other is too. This suggests a genetic component alongside some developmental randomness.

It seems that 20-30% is double or triple the likelihood of the being lefthanded normally, implying that actually there is a stronger correlation towards genes being a factor.

If at least one of the twins was left-handed, we would expect odds of 19% among sets of twins compared to 10% among babies generally, but then expect only 1% odds of twins, both twins would be left-handed if there was no correlation. So, the expected odds of exactly one being lefthanded is then 1:19, or just over 5%. Having actual odds of this being 20-30% shows that whatever is causing this is likely to affect both babies the same.

Having said that, I don't necessarily think we can just jump to genes - it could also be due to something environmental during pregnancy, after all both babies are growing in the same environment.

Quite the opposite. The earth's rotation can vary by quite a few seconds each year. But over hundreds of years, the variations mostly cancel out, which is why I think trying to add or remove leap seconds are a bad idea. The only people who care about such things are space agencies, and they can apply whatever offset they want, it doesn't need to affect everyone else.

Arguably, the only real-world impact this drift has on normal people is GPS, but GPS already transmits an offset from its own clock so that receivers can correct for that. The GPS clock is different both from UTC and TIA.

To me, it's useful because it frames it in terms of social connections in the target country and because how it works with an adjective.

So, British expats in Spain and Chinese expats in Spain are likely to socialise in their specific group, but rarely if ever intersect. They are all immigrants in the target country (and especially when considered as a whole as everyone from "outside"), and they are all expats (but probably in defined cliques).

I'd say these clusters of people are living the "expat life", but equally there are many immigrants who don't particularly want to hang out with other expats, because they're not trying to recreate where they left in a new place, but are trying to assimilate to the new place. They themselves are still expats even if they don't socialise much with other expats, but wouldn't be living the expat life.

Yeah, I'd like some kind of reward for having done the previous words in 4s each. Just when I get to a hard one (for me) it can take a really long time to spot it.

Also, maybe having a button (and also a key press) to randomly rearrange the letters, or allow me to drag them around to try to figure it out... like I'd do with scrabble tiles on my rack.

And they are correct according to the meaning of the word. Expats simply means someone who resides outside of their native country.

I guess colloquially it probably implies moving somewhere as an adult, but the word itself doesn't carry that meaning (it's literally ex=outside + patris=homeland). But for instance, my sister has lived permanently in New Zealand for 25 years now (and a few years prior to her permanent move) and has no intention to ever leave, but would still be considered an expat. Her children were born in the UK, but they were 4 and 2 when they moved there, and I don't think they'd ever have considered themselves expats as they've never known anywhere but NZ. In fact the oldest is visiting the UK for a week this year, it'll be the second time he's been in the UK since moving to NZ aged 4.

What happened to the original files that you uploaded to Myspace?

Why wouldn't you have made any attempt to preserve any of copy of your data anyway? Even if you believed the files would stay online forever, it's surely always more convenient to use local files than re-download every time?

(but also sorry you lost your last physical copy of your memories, that kind of sucks and sorry if my comment comes across as quite insensitive)

Hehe, I used to create a folder as some variant of "Old" and move everything in my downloads folder into it once or twice a year, and with a lesser frequency my documents. At one point when I realised this had got about 10 levels deep, I switched to yyyy-mm format directories instead of nesting them.

I also used to back up other PCs to each other somewhat regularly, and sometimes I'd end up with those files back on the original PC in a backup of another. Fortunately, when I switched to borgbackup on Windows as well [1], this massive reduplication of files became a solved problem.

[1] borgbackup doesn't officially work on Windows, but I run it in WSL which does reasonably well for all the files I really care about (i.e. the stuff I've made). When they have particular unusual characters in the filenames, it throws up a warning for that file every time, but otherwise seems fine. I've never bothered investigating whether those particular files restore to the correct filename, because I know I've also backed up the zip file those files have come from and it's just accidental that I've backed up the extracted files as well.