> If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products
Yes, but if you are so against ads that you spend $20 to not see ads (I am definitely in this group) and then see an ad for a "cool product" anyway, then that product is no longer cool. Any time something like this happens, I legitimately develop a grudge against that company and their products.
I might have bought that product before seeing the ad, but there is no chance of that after seeing the ad.
> Studies always show that you don't. You think you do, but you don't.
Did those studies have any outliers that DID have a negative reaction to ads? I am 100% certain I'd react EXTREMELY negatively in a situation like that.
The same way I wanted to buy a Tesla and rented one a couple of times in the past. Now I would NEVER AGAIN even go into a Tesla. Fuck that company.
> The same ambiguity can and always will exist with tim-apple.com and tim.apple.com
Similarly, I recently got a scam email that linked to de-apple.com (not a domain owned by APPLE) and also used apple.com-18221.com (also not apple.com).
I reported those domains to the registrar, but apparently it is not impersonating enough to take action.
Apparently they won't delete your old comments if you ask them to.
I'm someone who goes to somewhat absurd lengths to avoid tracking, but HN's policy doesn't bother me because I know the data exists elsewhere and deleting it here won't make a jot of difference to that.
I'm not entirely sure they'd need to comply. The question is what the purpose of the data being collected was, but seems to me that if you emphasise the whole idea that this is a conversation (which HN does in several ways) then actually "We don't delete comments" is defensible.
If I'm reading a thread about a problem I'm having in a video game on Reddit and it goes "This is very frustrating because I can't get a rabbit to teleport", then a reply which is [deleted] and then "Oh! Thanks so much, I'd never have figured that out" I'm in exactly the same place as the original poster, but now with the additional agony of knowing that there was a correct solution and that it's hard to figure out what it is - ugh.
Like most of the GDPR "Right to be forgotten" is not an absolute right. As you'll quickly discover when you insist that the bank needs to "forget" that you owe them a lot of money, there are plenty of legitimate reasons they can decline to "forget" you despite your invocation of a "right".
That's cute. Your records are yours. Barring some agreement to the contrary, I have no right to mess with them or inspect them, even if they contain information about me.
> But a company that does that is basically delegating both compliance and legal functions to IT. No sane company does that.
I was a Software Dev in a small (but fully regulated and licensed) stock exchange. We used to have guidance from legal experts, market experts, and traders, but in the last project I worked on, they just dumped 300 pages of laws and regulations on my desk and asked me what needed to be done. Why? Because the experts we used to have were either fired or left. Along with any product managers. I guess company leadership thought they were no longer needed.
Insane is right. I told them that this is not how it is supposed to work. I can't tell them what needs to be done. I am not a legal expert who can just interpret these regulations.
I was forced out of the company after that, but honestly, no one would want to work in such an environment anyway.
> If there were a license in the US for it, I’d agree with you.
Yeah, that is basically the thing in my country. You can't call yourself an engineer without passing a test, but I can't take it because there isn't one for software engineering.
Same thing for freelancing. Freelance jobs are defined in a list, and other jobs cannot benefit from the simplified tax rules that freelancers enjoy, but that list was written before software development was a thing.
His channel isn't really about 3D printing or maker projects, which is maybe why you have not heard of him.
He has (or had, not sure) an electronics repair shop where he showed laptop and phone repairs on his channel. Recently he is one of the people who push right to repair regulations and consumer rights. Which is probably why he is interested in this case.
I know how I would do this in git, but don't really see how this would be in jj. I currently don't use it in my workflow, but if it is super easy in jj then I could see myself switching.
This creates an empty commit that merges all 3 branches, you can think of this as your staging area.
When you want to move specific changes to an existing commit, let's say a commit with an ID that starts with `zyx` (all jj commands highlights the starting characters that make the commit / change unambiguous):
jj squash -i --to zyx
Then select your changes in the TUI. `-i` stands for interactive.
If you want to move changes to a new commit on one of the branches:
jj split -i -A branch1
Then select the changes you want moved. `-A` is the same as `--insert-after`, it inserts the commit between that commit and any children (including the merge commit you're on).
There's one thing that's a bit annoying, the commit is there but the head of the branch hasn't been moved, you have to move it manually (I used + to get the child to be clearer, but I usually just type the first characters of the new change id):
the beauty of it is there's not much to show; I use a crude jjui approach where I have an octopus merge working tree commit (in command line terms, jj new PR_A PR_B PR_C) and either use native jj absorb (S-A in jjui) which guesses where to squash based on the path or, when I'm feeling fancy, rebase the octopus via jjui set parents (S-M) function (also handy to clean up parents when one of the PRs gets merged).
> turns out plenty of people say they write for others to read
LLMs are not people. They don't write blogs so that a company can profit from their writing by training LLMs on it. They write for others to read their ideas.
LLMs aren't making their owners money by just idling on datacenters worth of GPU. They're making money by being useful for users that pay for access. The knowledge and insights from writings that go into training data all end up being read by people directly, as well as inform even more useful output and work benefiting even more people.
Except the output coming from an LLM is the LLM's take on it, not the original source material. It's not the same thing. Not all writing is simply a collection of facts.
Which is irrelevant if you're truly trying to "pay it forward".
That is the core of my observation: people claim to publish to benefit society, but push come to shove, they care more about getting credit and having oversight over who is benefiting, to the point of refusing to publish further (and sometimes unpublishing things) if that credit/control isn't given.
The problem isn't in wanting these things - it's in not being up-front about it.
Yes, but if you are so against ads that you spend $20 to not see ads (I am definitely in this group) and then see an ad for a "cool product" anyway, then that product is no longer cool. Any time something like this happens, I legitimately develop a grudge against that company and their products.
I might have bought that product before seeing the ad, but there is no chance of that after seeing the ad.
reply