thejsjunky

Properly "Big X" refers to the biggest players in the X industry, particularly with regard to trade groups and lobbying. It's useful because often this section of the industry will have unique qualities compared to the industry as a whole or other industries (such as how much they spend on lobbying, how much innovation they are responsible for, etc)

It is true that people will often use it as a lazy and fallacious way of vilifying but please note this is not exclusively a progressive phenomenon. Many of these groups lobby for things like govt subsidies, laws which restrict personal freedoms in ways that help their industry, etc...many conservatives aren't thrilled with such behavior.

In a brief non scientific survey of a few subreddits (r/libertarian, r/socialism, etc) phrases like "big oil" appear roughly comparably.

People on both ends of the political spectrum are (perhaps rightly) displeased with some of the actions of such groups and vilify them - they just disagree about what the root cause is and how to prevent such behavior.

The fallacy comes in when people use some particular actions of some players in an industry to invalidate everything that comes out of it. (such as implying that anything produced by a startup is ipso facto healthier than something produced by a large pharmaceutical company)

This issue was actually raised a couple weeks ago here on HN and Jeremy responded thusly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6079709

Keep in mind this is Philadelphia, which although it's improving has historically had a pretty high level of gun violence and homicide. It's usually not the worst city in this regard (New Orleans or Detroit has had that distinction lately) but it's generally the worst among the large cities; for comparison in 2010 Philly had several times more homicides per 100,000 people than NYC (19.6 vs 6.4), and beat out Chicago (15.2) by a few points.

Probably more importantly these are not just "inner city kids". Nearly all of them are African American which means they are less likely to enroll in/graduate college overall; and they are all the children of parents who were addicted to crack at some point (and probably continued to struggle with it). That puts them at even more of a disadvantage.

The article seems to say the opposite:

'It is the standard policy of the Government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law.'

It also mentions that in 1996 there was a pardon given as a "reward for information".

Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

You're just stating explicitly the implicit argument I was refuting, but ok:

The difference is immaterial for our purposes. The fact that one or both parents in a family do not have a biological link to their children is irrelevant. It's a curiosity of genetics that has little-to-nothing to do with how a family functions on a social level, which is the level marriage laws operate on.

Are we banning adoptions and step-children now? Society has no reason to outlaw couples that can't reproduce together. Homosexuals can adopt, they can use surrogates, they can have children from previous marriages (ended in divorce, or death, etc). As long as we're think-of-the-children-ing it would be better all around to let those children grow up in families if possible.

More importantly, that's not a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples - it's a difference between couples. Many straight people can not or will not reproduce with their spouse either - are we going to ban marriages between infertile people? Force people to have children?

The point is this: if you pick at random a married gay couple...and then pick at random a married straight couple....the difference between them will be no greater than the difference that we already tolerate between heterosexual couples. Therefore, you cannot argue that we must ban gay marriage on the basis of preventing some problematic aspect of gay marriage - any "problem" gay marriage is one heterosexual marriage also has. It's a largely artificial distinction. If not being able to have children together is SUCH a big deal, then argue against that and let gay couples be banned under that banner.

If you're going to ban it on the basis that a gay couple is statistically much more likely to have quality X, then quality X must be a VERY serious thing. Infertility is not serious enough to qualify.

Note too this situation may change. The science of reproduction is ever evolving and changing.

These are good reasons in my opinion.

is that I don't want the definition to change

This is either silly and arbitrary, or begging the question.

You don't want it to change why? Because you believe laws should never change? You're afraid of all the paper we'll waste printing out new forms? You don't want to have to memorize new legislation?

No, let's be honest - you don't want it to change because you don't agree with the proposed change. That's fine...but just state that instead of coming up with some silly dodge like "I don't want the definition to change".

I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them

Here I suspect is your most honest; you are against it because you don't like homosexuality. Fine, that's your right to feel that way. However you should just be honest with yourself and others and admit that, instead of providing silly and flimsy rationalizations which fall apart under any scrutiny.

Pardons are a general tool to forgive (in several senses) a crime. If you look at the history of pardons in the US for example, you'll find examples ranging from people who were wrongly convicted, to people who got one as a reward for cooperating in investigations, to people who simply had powerful friends.

Which is why I find that reasoning confusing - when you pardon someone, you just do it... and if you care to give a reason you can.

Perhaps it's different in the UK? Is this some limitation on the powers of the House of Lords?

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.

This premise is debatable, but assuming it is true it's still not a particularly strong argument. The law was designed to be flexible and evolve with society's needs and desires.

Allowing gay marriage is a minor adjustment of what we in the US currently understand marriage to be - not a "changing of the very definition". If we were talking about polygamy that would be a much stronger case.

Society encourages and allows marriages for a variety of reasons - involving tradition, encouraging general stability, families, etc. It also has a certain understanding of marriage - a partnership between two people. Homosexual marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage is the same in all these respects in practical terms.

To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce (in general)...but there are differences in how heterosexual marriages reproduce too. The supposed fundamental "differences" in gay couples are already tolerated (or entirely unproblematic) in the hetero population so banning gay marriages as a means to discourage them is not a valid argument. It's an artificial distinction.

Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics. Hey, that's fine - we're all entitled to our beliefs ...but let's be explicit and honest about it instead of kidding ourselves and each other.

If you really do want to stick to this farce, then at least be consistent and start demanding people must pass fertility and mental health exams before they can be married - to prove that they can produce children and raise them in a healthy environment.

not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon

Reasoning I find confusing. A pardon is by definition something given to people convicted of breaking the law. It can be and is sometimes used as a relief for people who have been -wrongly- convicted if there is no other mechanism (or just because it's easier), but that's not implied or required.

Is this some difference between US and UK law?

Literally, a different robot but it looks like he puts adhesive gel on the feet to help the landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mF9_2...

you're putting speed bumps in the paths of your thoughts.

I would argue that for many of the people I have met in my life, this would be a good thing. I don't we need to coddle each other all the time, but neither is the opposite workable or desirable - a little consideration is important.

If a driver appears to be drunk, how is that a random stop?

They're not stopping drivers who "appear to be drunk" - that's the point. They are allowed (supposedly, IANAL) to set up a checkpoint to stop every car (effectively a random stop) that passes by to see if the driver is intoxicated, or check to see that they are not in the country illegally.

They're not allowed to check for other crimes without probable cause though. They can't set up a check point to say drug possession or tax evasion, though if you are at a DUI checkpoint I believe you may somehow give them probable cause to check for those things.

For stuff like the example where you know you will be reusing the command, it's better to use an alias or script. Even if it's just a command you plan to run in a couple times in a row you can add a temporay alias with: alias foo = "!!" - that way you don't have to hit ctrl+r each time.

Still, it's a good tip in terms of adding comments to unusual/confusing commands so when you go through your history you're not like "wtf was I doing here?" or if you unexpectedly need to recall it.

If anyone wants to delve more into the workings of a JS VM, I've found the code of Higgs (https://github.com/maximecb/Higgs) to be very straightforward and readable. The interpreter and JIT are written in D and much of the run-time is written in JS. It's a successor to the Tachyon project mentioned in that post.

Nice. Interested readers may also want to check out Higgs: https://github.com/maximecb/Higgs

Probably not the best analogy as there are in fact McDonald's restaurants in Hiroshima (and I would imagine Nagasaki). There's one not far from the Peace Park towards Hiroshima Castle.

It's fair to be somewhat puzzled over it though; as mentioned in the article even today there is still quite a lot of animosity towards Japan in North Korea. I suppose it just goes to show that either the top Korean officials don't totally buy their own propaganda or that people are capable of amicably interacting with other people on a personal level even when they are at odds in the greater scheme of things - or some combination thereof.

> proposes is a veritable shitton of work

Perhaps I missed something in the post, but I don't see a "shitton" of work there.

The first step is easily a one weekend (if not one day) project. None of what was described is particularly difficult, complicated, or labor intensive. I wonder if people are making assumptions about all sorts of fancy extras that the post doesn't mention being included.

That's the time for pure code-work. Thinking/design/testing will eat up more time, but not that much more time. As described it's a pretty reasonable weekend project to last a couple months.

That's a fair criticism, but it needs qualification. JS doesn't have an integer type currently, but engines can be smart about using integers behind the scenes for efficiency.

In terms of your ability to use them explicitly there's asm.js, typed arrays, and various proposals like value objects for the future.

I can't help associating it with the "ducks" in Old City and those obnoxious quacker things they give everyone. They used to drive me nuts when I was working by their route.

> As both a musician and synth designer, I've always put the sound and user interface above all else.

You're talking about something slightly different: you're talking about what you use to evaluate the quality of a thing. I'm talking about what is the thing that you are purchasing. There is some overlap clearly; when you buy a synth you want a good one...but what it ultimately comes down to is you are purchasing the circuit.

The point is that in contrast to something like a lamp -with things like synthesizers the actual implementation is important and is in fact what you are purchasing -you are purchasing an analog synth of such and such type. Whereas with a lamp after a certain base level of functionality, you're purchasing entirely based on appearance.

> The level of originality being demanded here is unreasonable

I think you are similarly misunderstanding the issue. I think what the guy in the OP is trying to do in terms of a business is perfectly fine (with the condition that they are open about the fact that they are using someone else's design).

I also think that Etsy is trying to build a certain kind of marketplace...one for artists or crafts people. I think it's fair to question whether this counts as that.

If you're just taking a schematic from somewhere then paying someone to print the board, have them mount the components listed in the schematic, have them solder them, etc....which you then take and stick into an enclosure and wire the up... I just don't think that qualifies. I think you have a perfect right to sell that to people (heck, I'd buy it), I'm just not sure if it belongs on Etsy.

The problem is there's a lot of things to consider. How was he describing his products, was it accurate? How much of the assembling was he doing? Did he have any input into the design?

If on the other hand, he was doing the majority of the assembly, modifying the design, and/or he was using some creativity in sourcing parts (say, tracking down vintage diodes or something)...then I think it does qualify and should be allowed on Etsy.

> Imagine describing to a lay-person how a new library fit like a glove and saved you a couple thousand lines of code, only to have that person balk at your unoriginal, potentially dishonest work.

Right, this is a good analogy and I think you should think about it more. Just like the issue at hand, your analogy has a lot of nuance and things that must be considered.

What exactly was I hired for. If I was hired to write a program to compress a folder of images, sure it makes sense to just throw zlib or something in there and call it a day. That's fine. What though if I bill it as if I had written my own lib? What if I was hired to write a new compression library? Clearly in that case it's not ok to just give them zlib and charge for the work. What if I add a nice wrapper around it though, which adds utility...then it might become ok again since I am adding value. What if I translate zlib to another (programming) language then bill them? That might be ok in some situations, and others not.

It all depends.

What it comes down to is I think it's totally fair for Etsy to question it. It's enough in the "gray area" for me. It also seems the guy has not yet provided enough information to push it out of the "gray area".

I'd like to see stuff like this sold on Etsy, but it depends on the specifics.

There's also Turing Tunes, based on the same idea: http://maximecb.github.io/Turing-Tunes/

As a musician when I purchase a synthesizer, I am buying the circuit. The enclosure/build quality/etc is secondary, though obviously an important consideration.

If someone tells me I am buying a "handmade synthesizer" in addition to it being largely assembled by hand I would assume it contains a novel circuit design (as in, not an exact copy of someone else's design) unless I was explicitly told otherwise. In this case I would consider it to be "from a kit" in that he's taken a freely available plan and done the equivalent of assembling a kit for it.

Between the fact that the design is not novel, and the fact that it's not clear precisely how much of the actual assembly he is doing I think it's fair for Etsy to raise the issue.

I think you might be misunderstanding what the issue is. It's not that he's charging too much for his services or something - the amount of work he puts into it is irrelevant. I could spend quite a lot of time tracking down obscure/rare records from the past 10 years; travelling the country, digging in record shops, etc. That doesn't mean it would be appropriate to sell them on Etsy - it's not Ebay.

Personally I'm ok with such things being on Etsy. As long as it's labelled as an assembled kit or from someone else's design. I would even consider purchasing it. I don't think it's quite clear cut though and I think Etsy should be allowed leeway in deciding what they think is appropriate for their marketplace.

I don't think the issue is they believe it's mass-manufactured or something. The issue is whether it falls into the niche of what etsy wants to sell.

He's admitted that he doesn't actually design the circuits, and there's still some question about how much of the actual assembling he does.

It seems he's certainly doing some amount of work with his hands, the issue whether it's enough to count as "handmade" in the sense that etsy's customers expect.

I know as a musician if I purchased a "handmade" synth and later found out that it was basically just a kit that had been assembled for me, I'd be a little irked. Though if the store was up front about it, I would consider purchasing it to save myself the trouble of assembling it.

Personally I think it should be allowed as long as the seller is honest about it, though I could see why etsy might find it a bit dubious.

I think the title was changed. I believe originally said something about defeating a "domain squatter".

They're parroting an observation from a special about the book; it's a bit misleading taken out of context. The original observation was making a comment about Harper Lee's reclusive and private nature, not suggesting that Lee modeled Boo Radley directly on herself...though I'm sure many of the characters in the book contain bits of the author.

Book titles are not a quotation and therefore generally aren't put in quotation marks. Instead they are written in title case and underlined or italicised.

> The guy has no idea what the notation means by still wants to wear the t-shirt.

I'd read that SO post again, you seem to have misunderstood.

> To deny this is to deny the scientific theory of evolution.

No, it's to understand the statistics. The richer and more economically developed a country is in general; the lower the birthrate. Likewise that's the trend for households/regions/etc. In general the better off a person is, the less likely they are to have children or to have many children.

Your analysis is too simplistic. The issue here is where the incentive lies: with having more children or less. Programs that give money to the poor do neither of those things inherently. It depends on how the money is given; that is what causes the incentive to go one way or the other.

As we covered, it becomes more complicated because there are ways to give incentive to have more children. To put it simply, if you pay a woman for each child she has...she is more likely to have more children. If you give her the chance to earn more money, she is LESS likely to have more children.

> So education can't happen unless the ruling class releases the information essential to education?

That's a rather nice strawman you've constructed.

> How did people educate themselves before

Much more slowly and with greater difficulty than they do now; that's the point.

I'll cop to it: this had me going for a couple hundred milliseconds.

>it is dreading when I noticed that the most present animals are crows

Not necessarily a dread thing... perhaps they're karasutengu; crow spirits who live like mountain hermits and sometimes provide guidance to people. It was also the divine crow Yatagarasu who was sent from heaven to guide Emperor Jimmu to Yamato.

> he sad history of anti-poverty programs like AFDC

Right, but that's a more specific point than what you made and the distinction is important. You said "when people get money they have more children"..this is demonstrably false when talking in general.

The reality is, when you give people money in certain ways it becomes an incentive to have more children. On this we are in complete agreement. This does not hold as on overall trend though. It's perfectly possible to spend money on subsidies or programs which have the opposite effect.

> There's a difference between schooling and education.

There is, but in this context it's just splitting hairs.

> Your remark applies to schooling.

Not so.

> Education is free.

That's true, but meaningless in practical terms. The level of education is not going to spontaneously raise itself. It's true that some people could start providing education of their own accord, in fact many already do. However to have a real effect you need to organize and disseminate information, etc...all much easier with money.