- Or just stop watching. I seem to be out of tune with what people want in a TV show nowadays, I don't find much enjoyable. I accept there was never that much, but given how much content is produced now I would have expected more in my sweet spot.
- And servo: I wish that one would get more mention as it's quite far along. Having multiple competing browsers again that are not controlled by megacorps would be great. Ladybird for browsing, Servo for embedding.
- Plenty of things do work better as a native application. Packaging is a pain across the board nowadays. Apple is pretty good, you pay a yearly fee if you want your executable signed and notorized, but they make it very hard to run without that (for the lay person). Windows can run apps without them being signed but it gives you hell and the signing process is awful and expensive. Linux can be a packaging nightmare.
- Well the creator wanted to call it livescript. The creating company (Netscape) wanted the Java association.
- I would be much more inclined to continue voting for a politician who could explain their policy position as it changes in an open and sensible way. Politicians putting on a speech that sounds truthful and honest and like a discussion is happening between adults is so rare - it seems that very few people want that. I do though.
- I'm puzzled by your reply because it starts out by refuting that software is constrained by physics "Except it kind of does" and then immediately gives an example of it being constrained by physics "until we run out of silicon".
You can horizontally scale cargo transport by running more cargo planes until you're constrained in some way.
- > they need a Land Rover Defender
This is an English thing and I don't really get it, despite being English originally. Our English neighbour imported their Land Rover when they moved here from the UK, all the way to NZ. As far as I can tell their appeal is just for talking about it in-between trips to the mechanic, which is where they'll spend a lot of their time. Said neighbour's one is currently unroadworthy. They're ugly (subjective), inefficient, rattly, unreliable, not super fun to drive. I could understand if it was a nationalistic thing, but LR is owned by Tata motors.
- I find them far more trustworthy than the telegraph
- I've built my own sync engine in rust to run against supabase. It doesn't run the browser though, it's for a native app (tauri in my case). It's column level lww.
I have one place where I'm thinking I might need a crdt due to the complexity of the data and how you collaborate with it.
People take my app offline for long periods of time then reconnect with 1000s of records to sync so my sync is backgrounded and built to deal with several mb of data in sqlite files.
Anyway I'm interested in taking a further look at your thing over the holidays to see if it's worth switching or making partial use of it.
- The BYD cars are starting to look quite nice too. I saw one the other day that must have been a Seal and thought "that's a cool looking car what is it? huh a BYD"
- Yes that makes more sense. I would take the same approach.
- You can scale it within the bounds of the physical hardware it is running on. And as you scale it you start running into all the problems brought about by distributed systems, problems which very much stem from physics.
- As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract.
A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance"
I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.
- > You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business
You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not.
It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract.
Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
- It's not piracy. You might have a problem with it ethically. But you're not breaking copyright laws by blocking ads.
Another way to look at it is additive rather than subtractive. If I visit a site with a text only browser that cannot display ads, what is your position then? And if I then implement the ability for my browser to play only the main video on any page, what then?
When it comes down to it, we have no obligation to view the content on a webpage the way the publisher of said webpage wants us to. You can think of plenty of other examples that make "adblocking is piracy" ridiculous - I invert the colors but the publisher doesn't want me to see it with inverted colors. I wear sunglasses while looking at it, which changes the way it looks. Maybe the site I use always puts an ad in the same place so I stick a bit of tape on my monitor in that location, is that bad?
- Software doesn't operate in some magical realm outside of the physical world. It very much is constrained by real world limitations. It runs on the hardware that itself is limited. I wonder if some failures are a result of thinking it doesn't have these limitations?
- The problem with that is that it would require a huge amount of coordination for it to be by design. I think it's better to look on it as systemic. Which isn't to say there aren't malign forces contributing.
- They aren't choosing a side, they're choosing a person. Being bisexual surely just opens the field to more potential mates, but once you're with someone the same rules apply as to folks in any other relationship. And I don't want to sound too conservative - if you choose to be with someone and both agree to have an open relationship of some kind, or any other mutually agreed kind of thing, that's no-ones business but yourselves.
In this case though, they're saying their partner is pansexual - open to many kinds of sexual activities. And they're saying that they'd be accepting if their partner needed to go and do sexy stuff with someone else even though it'd cause them a lot of pain (that's my reading of it, not having a platonic friendship with someone else as you mentioned). I'm asking why? Having a different to hetrosexual appetite before going into a relationship shouldn't give you special rules once you're in one - it's absolutely no different than if a hetrosexual person wanted to sleep around. OK if your relationship allows for that, really not OK if it's going to cause your partner/spouse/love pain, as they said.
- I don't really see why you should support that. In your case your wife is not closeted and living a lie, everything is out in the open. So deciding to change you for someone else, regardless of sex, is no different than if I decided to change my wife for another woman. We give stuff up to make a commitment to someone else. It doesn't always work out and I'm not saying people should stay together when they don't want to, but I am questioning your pre-acceptance of your partner wanting to shag someone else even though that would clearly make you very unhappy.
So what do we think is more likely here? Jumping the gun due to your own dislike of some groups it seems.