testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

393

Joined

2 yr. ago

And real children aren't in a capitalist society?

To be fair, I think your analogy falls apart a bit because you can in fact take a picture of pretty much any art you want to, legally speaking.

You can't go sell it or anything, but you are definitely not in breach of copyright just by taking the picture.

What an interestingly middle of the road article.

It was kinda, like, the Republicans are terrible, bad faith racists. But also, despite not having good reasons, everything they're railing against right now is actually bad and should be reworked.

Nice to see an article promoted on here that isn't just circling the wagons on something just because the Republicans hate it.

I feel like this article didn't really... say anything?

It was kinda just a, like, this is a guy who exists and was mad about the things the ex-president of Harvard said in front of Congress and posted about it on Twitter.

Kept waiting for it to give me more info than that, and it kinda just didn't.

I really think we're just having two completely different discussions here mate. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I never did.

I also don't know that I think it's worth the time to hash out at this point. We're just talking past each other.

That's all valid, but I think you've missed my point.

While I disagree with "the laws did nothing so why have laws," I also disagree with, "the laws didn't work, so we need harsher laws." Both are flawed logically.

There is, in fact, a level of restriction that goes too far in the name of preventing crime. We could lock everyone in jail for instance, as people in cages can't commit crimes (ymmv). That's obviously a bad idea though, for many reasons.

And I'm with you. I think we need to evaluate what that right balance is. What I was pushing back on was the idea that, "if there's even one gun death ever, then the laws didn't go far enough, and we need more restrictions," which I took to be the sentiment of the OP. That lack of nuance worries me is all.

I don't know if the gun laws that were violated were good enough or not. I didn't look them up, tbh. But you can have all the laws in the world, and have them be completely useless if they aren't properly enforced. Maybe the laws are actually good, and the enforcement mechanism is flawed? Maybe both are good and this is just an unfortunate side effect of it being impossible to police everyone all the time. Or maybe the laws themselves are flawed and the OP is right that something needs changing. I don't know. But I do know that it's a big issue with a lot of nuance, and that a knee jerk reaction of "we need more laws" is unhelpful at best and detrimental at worst.

Not on that guy's side, but he didn't strictly say that we shouldn't have those laws.

He said that if you're siteing a case where we did have those laws and a bad thing happened as an example for why we need laws like that in place to stop the bad thing from happening, it falls a little flat.

Not that the idea of having laws like that is bad, but citing individual cases is flawed, as no amount of regulatory structure will ever prevent 100% of cases.

To frame it a different way, I could argue that there's literally no country on earth with strong enough gun laws, because there's no country with zero gun deaths. I could argue that we need random searches of people homes to try and find guns, or imprisoning people who talk about guns, because the current laws clearly aren't good enough because people are still getting shot. Doesn't matter if it was only 1 incident in the past 30yrs. Still happened, so we need stricter laws.

That's obviously an absurd level of hyperbole, and I want to reiterate that I'm all for regulation on firearms. Just wanted to point out that the core argument here is unideal.

I mean, probably true, but misleading? You're definitely way more likely to get shot in pretty much any major US city, almost all of which are blue.

Not making any value judgement of one vs another. Just saying that this particular issue is pretty ubiquitous. Definitely not just a "red state" thing.

Not to state the obvious one, but there's always the Raspberry Pi.

The supply has gotten better on those, so you can probably pick one up in your price range, and the power draw is super minimal.

I don't think you've read your own source right. As far as I can tell that doesn't say paper is preferred anywhere. That document seems to just be saying, "if you use paper, use this, if digital, use this" for each type of data you want to store.

And while I agree they're not recommending to shred all their paper documents and scan them into PDF, they're also not recommending to print off all your electronic documents and put them into filing cabinets either. Both are acceptable formats for different things, in their opinion.

And while I agree that low acid paper isn't likely to break down over 1000 years if left alone, the odds of the building they are in burning down or getting a silverfish infestation is actually pretty decent over a 1000yr period, so I don't think the odds of them surviving is nearly as good as you think.

And also, while I agree that PDF will likely be replaced a few dozen times in the next millennium, it's also really just a glorified markdown format. Every new standard will have converters to move from the previous standard to the new. Is that work? Certainly. Is it more work than actively maintaining physical archives? No. Especially since, as PDF is the defacto standard for electronic documents for every world government, any major shift in that standard will have well support paths forward for upgrading.

And most importantly, none of your points actually addressed my core point, which was, regardless of which one is "easier" to maintain, it's clear and obvious which one is cheaper. The cost associated with maintaining large physical archives is astronomical. Buying up some cloud storage is minimal.

Ah, yes, flash. A program that only lasted 15 years and was a platform that could execute arbitrary applications, most of which were silly video games.

A total apples to apples comparison with an open standard format for rendering static documents with hundreds of different reader implementations that's been around for a third of a century and is used by every major world government as the core standard for electronic documents. :P

Wait, hold on. Are you arguing that, in the long run, it's cheaper to pay rent and maintenance on facilities and personnel to caretake reams of paper than to have a bunch of PDFs on Google Drive?

Paper isn't some magical substance that doesn't need any maintenance ever. Silverfish, fire, water, and a million other things need to be actively guarded against to keep these records usable.

On the other hand, PDF has been around since 1992, and it hardly seems to be going anywhere. And even if it does, running a "PDF to NewStandard" converter on the files every 30 years or so seems unlikely to cost as much as 30yrs of rent on a physical building. And that holds true even over the course of 1000yrs. Rent's not cheap, and neither are people who maintain physical records.

Like, I'm not advocating for destroying the physical documents, but the idea that it's even remotely close to being cheaper to keep them as paper vs digitizing is an absolute fantasy.

Codewars. It has Postgres as one of the languages.

Forgive me if I wait for more concrete evidence than the word of a guy who refuses to cite his sources because he thinks Twitch is in collusion with the US Government and he may be thrown in jail or disappeared for doing a write up on some publicly available source code.

Just have ChatGPT write it for you. That might lower the effort barrier enough that it'll push you across the line on it.

Fair.

In addition to the other suggestions then, you could always just use VLC and the VLC Remote app that lets you control it from your phone.

Seems the easiest solution. No extra services to set up or anything. Literally just a video player with an app to control it from your phone.

I think you missed my point.

The roads are designed with people travelling 75mph in mind. They easily support those speeds. There is no design problem.

There is a policy problem in that, despite the roads being designed to safely operate at 75mph+, the law has the limit set at 50mph. This creates an environment where you are encouraged to speed, as going the speed limit feels like moving at a crawl.

There is no safety requirement for setting the limit so low. It is entirely to allow the police to pull over people arbitrarily, as everyone is always in violation of the law.

I think there's some confusion here over your proposed set up.

What device do you imagine having plugged into the HDMI of your TV? Is it your laptop or something else?

Are you intending on watching the videos through the web front end you're imagining, or just using the web front end as a "remote control" as it were?

I don't think most of the responders have a clear vision of what you're going for.

The speed limit is often artificially low to entice people to speed though. Especially in towns like this that subsist off speeding fines.

Back in 2007 a group of UGA students drove the 285 loop around Atlanta at exactly over the posted speed limit (at the time 55mph). This caused traffic to back up for hours and the teens were arrested for blocking the flow of traffic.

And, from personal experience, driving on 285 at less than 70mph is absolutely terrifying. You're liable to get hit by someone who is just moving with the flow of traffic. It's substantially less safe to adhere to the posted speed limits.

So what is the expectation then, if not to speed?

But speeding tickets are the most common type of infraction, and I think that's probably a good example of a systematic issue.

There are areas in this country where the speed limit is set artificially low, just to always allow for police to issue tickets capriciously.

The Atlanta beltway for example would literally grind the city to a halt if everyone adhered to the speed limit signs, and it's actively dangerous to attempt to do so as an individual.

That's not a people issue, it's a systems issue.