dan @ dan @lemm.ee

Posts

4

Comments

215

Joined

2 yr. ago

Gimme dat blowhole mod

Yeah that’s totally galling. Shrinkflation for online services.

You know some shiny-suited corporate asshole got a huge bonus for coming up with that though.

Isn’t the “take it or leave it” approach to consent considered consent bundling? Didn’t google get fined for doing a similar thing?

If you’re making a mil a year in revenue there’s a good chance your profit margin is tiny and licensing fees could obliterate it.

Hotmail was 2mb.

Yet more evidence that aggressive adblocking is cyber security.

Surely those broadcasters will pull their streams (it's not like they're not already hurting), FireTV will get a reputation of having restricted access to broadcast TV, some people will live with it and some will buy a smart TV and not worry about Amazon any more..

Look while I do agree Reddit can be a bit of an echo chamber, what you're saying is you struggle to interact with a community in a way that the people in that community are happy with. I'm not suggesting that you are a trolling fuckbag intent on only starting fights and drama for their own amusement, but what you want to be able to do without restriction is the same as what a trolling fuckbag intent on only starting fights and drama for their own amusement would want...

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I just don't think it's a good enough reason to decide minimum karma limits aren't valuable.

Yeah. Karma requirements pretty much just force you to make a few comments without being an asshole to anyone before you can post. This seems like a fairly low bar to me, at least for anyone who’s not an asshole.

Omg they’re going to get n-bombed by a 12 year old to death!

I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.

I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.

I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).

So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.

The way it works is that there's a symbol table entry for "foo" which has a slot for a hash, scalar, array, glob, etc.

That leads to some super weird behaviour like, for example, if I declare a scalar, hash and array as "x":

        $x = "sy";
    %x = (foo => "mb");
    @x = ("ol", "s!");


  

You can access them all independently as you're aware:

        say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; # Outputs:  x: symbols!


  

But what's really going to bake your noodle is I can assign the "x" symbol to something else like this:

        *z = *x;


  

..and then the same thing works with z:

        say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z; # Outputs:  z: symbols!


  

Oneliner if you want to try it:

        perl -E '$x = "sy"; %x = (foo => "mb"); @x = ("ol", "s!"); say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; *z = *x; say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z;'


  

Congratulations! You now know more about one of Perl's really weird internals than I'd wager most Perl programmers (I have literally never used any of the above for anything actually productive!)

The issue with pugs is not that they're evil or bad creatures, it's that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that's lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That's unfair on the animal.

It's like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down's syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody's saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it's that we don't think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.

Now for dogs it's a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn't very fair on those animals, but if we can't find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.

Well the black market doesn't exist because it's not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can't take outside?

My point is if you ban breeding but you don't ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.

You mean the fact that you can have a hash called %foo, an array called @foo and a scalar called $foo all at the same time? I agree that's a weird choice and there's potential for insanity there, but it's pretty easy to just not do that...

20+ years of Perl experience and while Perl has a load of idiosyncrasies that make it harder to work with than other languages, I don't think that particular one has ever caused a significant problem.

Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.

I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.

The problem with “don’t ban them but don’t let them breed more” and allow people that have one to just carry on is you just create a potentially lucrative black market for these dogs (in fact you doing that might make them more sought after), which doesn’t actually fix any problems.

Not necessarily advocating killing animals because they’re inconvenient but ultimately if they’re going to be a problem (and it certainly seems like that’s the case) then the sooner they’re banned the less harm is inflicted overall.

Nope. But I know a bunch of people that do or have, and have interviewed several (it’s a pretty small sector!)