Critical thinking is taught in schools. The issue is it's rarely applied. Critical thinking takes a lot of mental effort and often boils down to who do you trust.
A group of flat earthers designed an experiment to test their belief. Performed it and showed the Earth was round. Then dismissed the result.[0]
When your priors say the probability is nearly 0 then no evidence is strong enough to change your belief. It's why science sometimes only advances when people die.
For posts that wouldn't be hard as firebase has the data[0].
However for comments that's difficult as neither firebase[1], nor hackernews public[2] has scores. The data is only available when you are logged in directly on news.ycombinator.com. So, you could scrape it yourself.
To get your post karma over time just download your submissions[3] and plug it into excel.
Revenue can be used to determine the cap on the actual damages that may be awarded in a successful copyright infringement suit.
Moreover, copyright suits should only allow actual damages + cease and desist (copying).
Thus, if the work has no proven revenue, and the copyright holder sues someone for infringement, the only remedy they will obtain from the court is an order instructing the defendant to stop the copying.
Copyright lawsuits where no actual damages can be awarded wouldn't even go before a judge necessarily. There could be a hearing and some summary decision handed down: you assert the copyright, and the defendant is served the prohibition order. If fees were awarded to the plaintiff, they would be limited to absolutely minimal amounts related to the filing of affidavits and whatnot (documented by receipts from the court registry); the system would not allow some copyright troll to act in collusion with lawyers in order to rack up legal fees to extract from defendants.
From what I understand of OPs rules, it could remain under copyright indefinitely (you don't care if the fee is 100% of your revenue if your revenue is 0).
That seems really low. The point of copyright is to incentivize people to create more art, so We The People can experience more art. If you're not going to sell your art, why are we enforcing your rights at all? I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate reason to share your art with all except one person you hate, or to keep it locked where no one can see it, but I am saying that there's no need for Us The People to use our government apparatus to help you with that.
SpaceX definitely wants to make a profit. I don't think building a city on Mars is profit maximization though and this is Elon's explicit reason for not taking SpaceX public.
> According to the company, the short-term demands of shareholders conflict with his long-term ambitions.
One important decision argument against AWS SES is their policy to keep bounce rate below 5% (account put under review, if unresolevd until end of month, will be suspended, with hard limit of 10%) [1] compared to least strict Postmark's bounce rate of 10% [2].
Sometimes for SAAS products with a huge userbase or freemium pricing model is super difficult to keep the bounce rate so low for transactional emails.
Policy like this is meant to protect sender reputation, not just provider IP pool. High hard bounce rate lowers your inboxing in the long term. If your bounce rate is consistently above 5% consider verifying all new emails before sending them an email > https://www.bigmailer.io/blog/email-verification-service-pro...
Natural email decay rate is 2-3% per month so the goal is to stay close to this range, but the lower the better.
For a community that really valued anonymous posting, couldn't you let members vouch for anonymous posts before making them visible? If no one vouches then they disappear.
Like, hacker news almost allows anonymous posting because the account creation is so simple.
Maybe, but "a community that really valued anonymous posting" is likely to be defined by this value. The first "problem" is that likely use cases are users/comments/topics that aren't allowed elsewhere. So.. that community will tend to be a haven for whatever content other sites have actively ejected.
That doesn't make it impossible to have anonymous accounts, but it is a high tradeoff decision and likely a defining one.
I think it's more applicable for sites that have somewhat more objective and/or legible goals. Wiki-ish sites, for example. If there's a lot of free form discussion... anonymity is probably a bad decision for the site owner.
One of the amazing things about Reddit is how different communities compete with each other.
Allowing individual subreddits to enable anonymous posting lets the market decide if the pros outweigh the cons. (If the subreddit has a history of bad moderation, ban the subreddit)
I feel like giving communities more options in customizing the algorithm that dictates the discussion is powerful.
Hacker News allows it (how else are you gonna get that hot FAANG goss?) but it's actively discouraged:
"Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to."
HN has the flagging system, votes, regulars, and the mods.. and it scales very well they are always on top of it.
Gab, the free speech social network, deals with this topic a lot... and likewise does moderation with a flagging system, volunteers, group mods, and site mods. The community is far larger, but our policies are much simpler to compensate.
"A collision is possible but the total number of unique keys generated is so large that the possibility of a collision is almost zero. As per Wikipedia, the number of UUIDs generated to have atleast 1 collision is 2.71 quintillion. This is equivalent to generating around 1 billion UUIDs per second for about 85 years."
part of the point of UUIDs is that you don't have to. Collision is unlikely enough that your time would be more wisely spent worrying about the sun exploding unless you generate an absolutely absurd amount of data.
Unless you are writing nuclear warhead management system, writing UUID collision handling is waste of time. Client can retry on top level if request failed.
my worries were more about access control, it is sort of fine if a costumer experiences data loss because an insert fails and the application doesn't retry, it is less fine if a collision causes a user's documents to be swapped with another user's docoment and they end up showing kinky porn on a live press conference.
Sort of the distinction between unspecified behaviour and undefined behaviour in C.
The application shouldn't report the insert as successful if it actually failed. That way, the user don't go around thinking the insert actually succeeded, and there is no data loss (if it didn't succeed it must be retried, by the app or manually)
You need some UX like an error message in a red rectangle or something.
there would be data loss if the insert/update would meet a collision and either decided to overwrite the record or to report the operation as already completed (the latter is what I imagine git would do for a collision scenario).
the solution might as well just be not to care about this case (no sarcasm).
But if we're talking about a database insert and there's a collision (and the uuid column has an unique constraint - as it should, since it's meant to be a primary key), then the insert will not be successful.
Your application might not care about treating this error, but the DB will report it.
That sounds like a good idea, but in practice it turns into an unmanageable disaster of petty removals and biased moderation.
r/science has something like 1500 moderators, most of which only have the power to remove comments. The rules are applied seemingly at random, and the problematic posts/titles are rarely actually fixed, they just have a sea of [removed] under them. This makes the biased posts even worse as the comments correcting them and the discussion about it disappears.
That explains it why /r/science is such a graveyard! Thank you!
It sounds like if any of the 1500 mods dislike a comment, then that comment disappears. That's extremely biased towards removing comments.
My suggestion would have those 1500 mini mods vote "keep" or "remove" - majority wins. The main mod can look at contentious votes and override the mini mods decisions. Further the main mod can remove mini mods that are voting poorly.
I've been writing a Reddit clone that uses elected moderators, statistical sampling, and referendums to estimate the result of referendums. I'm curious what tools you think would work well.
Full transparency of how the system classifies a given person, person is fully annonymous and it's based on reputation alone. Then let ME decide the parameters of what I want to see. Treat it like a decision support system for content. Can be gamed for sure, but give new accounts the base defaults only (like certain subreddits do) and it would eliminate most of this since the barrier to abusing it is very high. Also, teach users that they might sometimes see something weird or bad, be transparent with them. This shielding behavior is like a helicopter parent soccer mom "protecting" their kid. It's annoying there and it's dangerous here.
A big downside with the Scuttlebutt system from a user perspective is that once I post something, it's out there forever. The best I can do is ask my friends to delete their copy of my post.
Democracy only works when you have more energy available than people and that is about to not be the case after 200 years of extracting sunshine from the earths crust. The only thing we're efficient at is to waste energy!
Your own http server/database!?! Do you mean you implemented them from scratch? I'm just using nginx/expressjs & postgres. Edit: rupy! interesting! Does ssl kill it's efficiency?
> Democracy only works ...
Energy limitations seem beyond my lifetime. I just want to see how to run a community based on the will of it's members. Efficiently using their time.
> sign in with google
It's not ideal. I originally implemented my own authentication, however implementing it "securely" is a huge task. My main problem is unknown unknowns. Even big companies have non-perfect authentication, like leaking emails during recovery/login. If the site gets any traction I'll expand the authorisation options.
Please be aware of Lemmy, the ActivityPub-compatible Reddit clone. It's in a quite far stadium of functionality, but I'm sure extra development on their moderation systems would be more than welcome!
I've built https://bundlescanner.com which is similar what you're describing. It has indexed 35,000 of the most popular npm packages. However, it is not accurate enough to reliably identify which specific version of a package is present in a js bundle.
I'd be curious to hear if anyone can think of possible applications of it in security auditing.
A group of flat earthers designed an experiment to test their belief. Performed it and showed the Earth was round. Then dismissed the result.[0]
When your priors say the probability is nearly 0 then no evidence is strong enough to change your belief. It's why science sometimes only advances when people die.
[0] - https://brain-sharper.com/science/flat-earthers-tried-prove/