I don't. Why is Apple hesitant exactly?
@Dracophoenix | Hacker News
From 10/21/2014, 3:35:04 AM till now, @Dracophoenix has achieved 886 Karma Points with the contribution count of 1043.
Recent @Dracophoenix Activity
If Reddit goes the way of Tumblr or Digg, does he recommend any other sites to look at? Maybe lobste.rs or 4chan?
It doesn't take a complicated renderer to make a usable browser. The very first web dev built his own browser in a few megabytes of C and created his own markup language (based on SGML). Everything we use today is based on that work. So I think it's a relevant marker for when the line between advanced web development and "regular" coding gets blurry.
>It's hard to fully define and arguing about the borders of this field is sort of pointless.
I don't think it's pointless at all. If advanced pure web dev is relatively less complicated ,even at the highest levels, then it's important to define where the line ends and begins. I might not have the answer, but I think it's an interesting question worth asking instead of leaving such definitions up to a God of the Gaps-like argument.
> At the most advanced levels of pure web dev
And what's that level exactly? Creating one's own markup language or browser engine from scratch?
> The Tori and Conservative parties in England did not just oppose state welfare. They often opposed industrialization as it was the foundation of their opponents' power and it creates potential for shifts in the roles of individuals in society.
I was of the opinion that British conservatives at the time viewed state welfare as a form of noblesse oblige. Burke and Disraeli both argued for a paternalistic state in which every man was made to serve others for the sake of Empire, Church, and State.
> Another reason is that if you're not participating in common institutions you have no stake in them.
What's wrong with disassociation as a motivation? In a borderless world I don't see a reason for forced participation in a place that one might not even like. So long as everyone pay their financial debts, how they live their life shouldn't be anyone's business.
According to the article, the warrant says kidnapping, a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. However, the district attorney for the case would have to show probable cause to enforce the arrest warrant. There's little chance of establishing that absent rediscovery of evidence or the existence of new witnesses from a crime that occurred nearly 70 years ago. There's also the issue of their being only one living witness relevant to the ordeal. And she is unlikely to say anything even if she were to possess a steel trap of a memory.
Thank you for the informative and well-article (despite the fact that it is an ad). I'm wondering what difference between Hathora and SpatialOS. As I understand it, they both offer similar benefits.
What's reactionary about applying checks and balances?
Gitgud (Based on Gitlab)
Gitea (fork of Gitgud, self-hosted)
Bitbucket
There are others at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source-code-ho...
How did you route VOIP through Telegram and Signal? Don't you need a real phone number to sign-up?
What about Twilio?
Ebook authors, Netflix screenwriters and Spotify artists are still able to obtain royalties for every download or view, so I wouldn't say it's a system of a bygone era just yet. Indie video games, for example, show a path (albeit one with a middleman) to how one might obtain royalties for a work that is "impossible" to count reproductions or uses for.
How would a royalty system work for software?
3 points • 13 comments
IANAL. Privacy qua Griswold (and subsequently Roe) is a limited application of privacy as is commonly understood. A full right to privacy in a classically liberal sense is a right to keep something from the knowledge or access of any or all others by means of (but not limited to) omission or oath. If a right to privacy in this sense were to be applied to the CCW scandal, one could argue that California (or any state) should never have required disclosure of gun ownership in the first place or (should such information have been disclosed by the owner voluntarily) that California had violated a promise to keep such information secret unless otherwise noted.
The limited privacy right in Roe was invented by the Warren Court to decide Griswold vs Connecticut (contraceptions). The only other case where I recall privacy being explicitly mentioned is Lawrence vs Texas (sodomy), a case which directly derives from Griswold.
It's not necessary for one to have already quit one's job. A question I've received is "What made you want to change jobs?" The question assumes that you are or will be removing yourself from a position at one's current/previous employer upon being accepted for the new job.
> What, exactly is the alternative? A simple solution is to let the government do the blacklisting, and payment providers only need to (1) comply with the blacklist, (2) report suspicious activity, same as today. It would be a serious offense for companies to keep their own moral blacklists.
It would be for the government to do it as well. Your solution is for the government to re-enact McCarthy Era tactics without due process of the law. What makes you think that this blacklist will just be limited to the "bad hombres"?
> Under monopolistic market conditions, there's way less incentive to saturate all corners of the market. Just because it didn't pass VISAs risk/reward calculation doesn't mean that other companies would come to the same conclusion. It's hard to give an exact prediction, but generally when monopolies/oligopolies go away the market situation improves for all other parties.
Your monopolistic analysis is entirely irrelevant as it fails to account the big elephant in the room. It's no longer a free market if the government makes the way people get payed unworkable. By making porn a third rail, the government has imposed a ceiling on growth in the traditional credit card sector. It's regulation that's created a zero-sum game.
I wouldn't call the stock market a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, every citizen/participant has the same vote as another and all it takes is simple majority can invalidate the rights of every individual. Obviously that's not the case in the US, and for the better.
Given your username, how did/do you manage to pass the interview for all those jobs? At least one of your interviewers would likely have asked if you've "finished" working with your "previous" employer or a question alluding to it. Either that or they would have done a background check via Experian or LexisNexis.
site design / logo © 2022 Box Piper