Presumably publications like the WSJ know about these bypasses and tolerate them unlike the The UK Daily Telegraph which doesn't for its 'premium' articles. However how is using them on a regular basis not fraudulent?
If I were a regular WSJ reader, I'd subscribe, but I'm only reading the occasional WSJ article that's linked here on HN. Having the Add-On bypass it is more convenient than using the FB redirect snipplet and that's about it. If the WSJ doesn't want any non-subscribers to read their articles, then it's on them not to provide exceptions (FB referrer).
For me, it boils down to reading between 1-3 WSJ articles a month by bypassing the paywall or reading none at all if they don't allow me to, since I don't consider the consumption worth the price (which includes handing over data to a US corporation) I'd have to pay. That money is better spent on a local news outlet that provides me with news I consider more relevant to myself.
What is even the point of posting a paywalled article to a forum like this? Anyone who puts content behind a login does not wish it to be linked in an open forum. Period. If the WSJ wants their articles shared and discussed, they should build and maintain their own HN behind that paywall and keep it there.
Your suggestion of going via FB makes things even worse. Now there are two walls involved in keeping others out.
Or am supposed to keep a plethora of logins at hand just to participate in an open community?
Co-founder and CTO of Mode here. I'm not too concerned that visual exploration is going to replace SQL for ad-hoc data analysis or data modeling for business intelligence. I think proprietary viz platforms are strictly inferior to open sourced ecosystems like Vega in any case. Open ecosystems win over closed ecosystems in the long-run.
We're more interested in integrating the tools and ecosystems people are already using in novel ways than we are in being yet another dashboard or visualization tool. Dashboards and visualizations are incredibly valuable but they're just one of the many ways that analytics teams deliver value to the organization. There are a lot of "jobs to be done" for an analytics team and the list isn't getting any shorter.
I wonder if the criticism that the Flux team at Facebook has directed at two-way data binding is also applicable to Meteor. Jing Chen is her intro of Flux (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkdrAPrdcw&list=PLb0IAmt7-G...) says that two-way data binding creates a major challenge for scaling applications because views can trigger changes in data, and data changes can trigger cascading changes in views, which makes it very difficult to predict the behavior of the app as a whole. Wouldn't Meteor face the same challenges?
In other words, if you believe that the Flux design pattern (which involves a central dispatcher as the only entity capable of updating the data) is sound, shouldn't you stay away from Meteor's model when building large applications? Or am I missing something?
Meteor doesn't use two-way data binding. You have template instances, which are wrapped domranges based on handlebars templates that call helper functions (one way binding). You then have event handlers for templates that you assign to class selectors, which will be delegated to each template instance that is created. You then manually change the data within event handlers.
That's an interesting point. I find two-way binding to be very convenient, but I wonder if the industry is moving towards a one-way bind solution (at least it seems like a common theme with most front-end frameworks).
This is quite surprising to me. I know that Pete Hunt -- one of the authors of ReactJS -- and one of the main proponents of using it in conjunction with Flux, gave a talk at Meteor Devshop 11 earlier this year (http://youtu.be/Lqcs6hPOcFw?t=48m7s), and didn't say a word about the problems associated with two-way data binding. To me that would seem to be the elephant in the room. Is that because he treats Meteor as a framework for prototyping and smaller scale apps?
haha, no. It was meant as a quasi-joke. I'd like to see one though.
Certain laws are very cut-and-dry (speeding for instance) and perhaps laws could be proven on a functional basis.
You could even make it axiomatic from the constitution and declaration of independence.
Of course, you'd need to define the axiomatic meaning of things like 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' - which is hard to do even with such simple language.
And then after loading the axioms, you'd spend a lifetime going through errors in the existing laws.
Certain laws are very cut-and-dry (speeding for instance)
Ha! No.
* do you want to give an exemption for speeding for, say, ambulances? So how do you define "ambulance"? Do you have to be registered to drive an ambulance? What defines the "duty of an ambulance" (or are they allowed to speed no matter what). What about a van carrying an organ to be donated?
* What if I have my sick child in the car and I'm rushing them to the hospital because it's faster than waiting for an ambulance? Is it right that I can be arrested and convicted for that? I think that would be a perversion of the spirit of any just law.
* What if I'm being chased by a maniac relative who wants to kill me? Can I speed then to drive away from them? Do I have to believe my life is in danger? How do you define that?
* Let's pretend I'm driving along and some other vehicle is about to move into my lane and crash into me because they are stupid and don't see me, and let's pretend that if I speed up a little bit (over the speed limit) and am able to get in front of them and avoid an accident. Should I be convictable for speeding even though I sped to prevent an accident?
Sure, these are all edge cases and there are loads of cases where it is clear cut, but you have to write a law that can handle the edge cases. Without accepting the vagueness of human life, you'll wind up with an unfair conviction that is horrible.
Or, alternatively, you can write the law simply and let people decide for themselves if it's worth breaking.
So, no exemptions for anyone, but then part of the cost of running an ambulance service is paying speeding fines regularly. Given the cost of ambulance services without that, the additional expense is lost in the noise, making it obviously a good choice to speed when useful (for ambulances).
Trying to figure out after the fact whether someone had a good reason to break the law (and therefore shouldn't be penalized) is one of the things that complicates legal systems enormously. Instead, we should write the law clearly and specify the penalties for breaking it directly, and let those who have the best information about the situation, the potential lawbreaker(s), choose whether it is worth breaking the law in a given instance.
The whole point of the proposed system is to capture all the downside of a given action in a single penalty. Therefore, escalations based on repeated actions wouldn't make any sense.
Some countries do a "penalty points" system where you get (say) 2 points if you're speeding, and if you get (say) 12 points, you're off the road for (say) 2 years. Your proposal of "let people break the law" means that you'd run out of ambulance drivers.
You then have the problem of whether someone can be fired as an ambulance driver if they don't speed. Many countries employment law says that you can't fire someone if they refuse to break the law for the job. So what happens there?
Yes, if we changed the laws, laws would be different.
I'm not suggesting that laws should be passed that work this way within a framework that assumes they don't. The solution to a mountain of bad code is not to add another layer that tries to make huge changes; it's to rearchitect. I also understand that this isn't going to happen in a large existing system like the US; I think it's a better way, but there's no easy, incremental path from here to there.
As for your hypothetical: In this system, since the vast majority of penalties would be monetary, or have monetary equivalents, and since the entire damage is (supposed to be) captured by the penalty, ambulance companies would come up with their own rules under which they would pay fines on behalf of their drivers, contractually. The market could then correct via abuse of those rules by the driver, or refusal of drivers to work for that ambulance company, depending on which way the rules erred.
This is only the codified portion of the federal law. So called "Statues at Large" that are passed by Congress but not codified into USC are not included. Plus this does not include the federal common law based on the rulings of federal courts.
If you were to start a new country, what would the legislative process look like there? For example, how should new "startup nations" like BlueSeed (http://blueseed.co) inspired by Seasteading Institute go about passing and storing laws? Should they have some sort of open github repo to which anyone can make pull requests? How do you see the congress of the future?
You can look at relatively small jurisdictions and copy what's appropriate. Throw out hunting and fishing and take Alaska's laws in 1959 and you've got the minimum for a jurisdiction. Same for the Canal Zone. You can add legislation from other jurisdictions that works, like New Zealand's torrens (not torrent) system. Alberta's condo laws. I wrote a set of laws for a new jurisdiction, there's no reason to start from scratch.
You just say that the laws in force on a particular date apply locally, minus anything that physically can't apply (eg laws about particular locations).
The law of every country in the English-speaking world started that way. Australia's current system of law, for example, commenced as a branch of British law on 26 January 1788. All the laws in force in Britain at that moment were presumed to apply; laws governing institutions and issues peculiar to Britain-as-a-place just weren't of any consequence.
Periodically you go into the collection and clear it out. In Australia in the 80s and 90s there was a law reform movement and as a positive side-effect enormous research was done to discover the true coverage of "Imperial" laws still technically in force. Our various Parliaments passed various Acts to repeal and replace old laws.
For example, where I come from, in the Northern Territory, the Law of Property Act repealed laws going all the way back to shortly after the Norman conquest.
You just say that the laws in force on a particular date apply locally, minus anything that physically can't apply (eg laws about particular locations).
Yep. Or you give yourself a new constitution and say "All laws previously in force automatically come into force, unless they contradict the new constitution". Ireland did that.
Likewise Ireland cleared out a lot of old laws in the 200X's. It was done by saying "Anything pre-1922 is repealed unless it's on this list".
I'm unsure why they kept some laws, like the 1204 law on "Erection of castle and fortifications at Dublin; establishment of fairs at Donnybrook,Waterford and Limerick", but at least now we can refer to it as the Fairs Act of 1204....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chi...
If you don't have WSJ subscription, paste the title into FB's search bar, and open the link via search results to bypass the paywall.