That statement from La Liga is nothing short of embarrassing. Raving about child pornography, in a simple copyright infringement case? And the repeated focus on "IPs" is incredibly disingenuous; Cloudflare's multiplexing of half the internet onto a small number of IP addresses is not exactly a secret in the tech community.
Why are Spain's courts allowing this injunction to stand? It's clearly being used to bring the court system itself into disrepute at this point.
Where is the Land Rover supposed to sit on this scale?
There are current Land Rovers with market positioning suggesting they're "better" than Mercedes, and there are historic Land Rovers which were arguably not much better than camels.
That's a quote. You may want to ask Sheikh Mohammed (current ruler of Dubai) for why his dad was mocking him for his choice of a car. I just posted the quote - felt relevant.
I'm also enthusiastic, it's not often you see people find a genuinely underserved niche and you have.
I don't know if I would pay £19 for a general state-of-the-area report. I would almost certainly have paid £100-300 for a service that took my planning application, critically reviewed it and told me which aspects were and were not likely to pass, with references to specific examples within my local area.
Thanks, honestly that means a lot! Yeah, the pre-submission review idea is interesting and I've thought about it. I have the data to surface "applications similar to yours in your ward, here's what got approved and what didn't" but I haven't built it as a workflow because it requires the user to upload their plans... and that's a different kind of trust ask, but yeah, it is definitely worth revisiting. £100-500 is also a much more honest price for something that genuinely changes a decision. £19 is in the awkward "too much for curiosity, too little for stakes" zone you and the other commenter are both pointing at.
Just checking, are you using an LLM to reply? Your replies are riddled with things LLMs are good at, like making quoted analogies that make no sense. They're not even analogies
Deterministic scrapers are almost certainly the right answer for this task, because once those special snowflakes have paid for their bespoke IT system, they'll never change it.
On the grind, why not get an agent to help you build the long tail of deterministic scrapers? Claude etc is really shockingly good at this kind of moderate-complexity iterative work, it will just keep going around the fetch/parse/understand loop until it has what you're looking for.
Yeah, that's essentially what I'm doing. Claude handles most of the look at the portal, work out the search form, write the config loop. The actual bottleneck isn't code tbh, it's that every (snowflake) council needs like 30+ minutes of investigation before you can even get going, and a chunk deadend because the portal's broken or migrated. I already hit three this morning. Worcester returns connection refused, Breckland's URL is dead, Rother migrated to a different platform. The grind is "is this portal even alive" more than the scraper itself.
As a political post the formulation in the article is crass in the extreme, misrepresenting both the motivations of red and blue voters and also the and the long-term consequences of those parties' policies. There's no progress to be made in a conversation held so close to the surface.
It's very inaccurate/loaded as a political post, but the choice of colors makes the intent fairly obvious.
Politically speaking, in the US where everything is rigged by corporate media and a uniparty of capital interests with red/blue facades (where blue manufactures consent for red every step of the way), the only winning move is to not play.
Interestingly there are variants of the question where "no one pushes any button" should also be a "winning condition". The original problem states "if less than 50% of people press the blue button only people who push red survive" which rules this out, but it could be changed to "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then only red pushers survive" (allowing for people to opt to be a non-pusher). Or it could be "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then only blue pushers die" (with the non-pushers also being spared).
I think the latter is more interesting since now there's a moral consequence to voting vs abstaining.
Or you could lean into the political framing. I bet if the vote were retaken with question phrased as "if greater than 50% of people choose red, then people who pressed blue die", you might end up with some switchers who vote purely out of spite. Or maybe that framing makes it feel like voting red has a more significant moral consequence (actively condemning people to death) that the original question doesn't, so it results in more people pressing blue.
You could even add in a penalty if you press a button but are a non-majority, but then that's just the prisoners dilemma.
This only works for business leases. The employee sacrifices part of their salary in return for being provided a lease car, and both the employee and employer save tax on that money (up to 45% employee, ~15% employer).
For an ICE car the government claws this money back through hefty "Benefit In Kind" taxes placed on employer-provided vehicles, but as an incentive to drive adoption the rates on EVs are only 3% of the car's nominal purchase price (and you only actually pay up to 45% of that 3%).
It doesn't work out "free," but it's typically as cheap to lease a new EV through this scheme as it is to pay the depreciation on a used ICE.
Not sure what schemes are that good (would be interested to see). My company has one, but I ended up buying a used ICE because it worked out to cost about the same as leasing the equivalent EV model of that car. But that might have been the case for the specific car I was looking at (small Volvo SUV).
check out https://www.leaseloco.com/ (there's other sites - I am assuming you are in the UK), they have a lot of deals on. If you want a really good deal then I don't think you want to look for a specific car, you want instead to see what deals are going on and choose between them. It _seems_ that from time to time the manufacturers do a bit of a firesale via leases.
Unfortunately, if your employer uses a "scheme" then the middleman creams off the 15% that the employer would save, then jacks up prices well beyond the market because they have a captive audience.
If the employer leases the car themselves and provides it to you as a benefit, it can be good value -- but then someone has to own the risk of you changing jobs.
> Apparently, when Steve Wozniak first got his hands on an ACE 1000-series machine, “he felt that Franklin had even copied the circuit-board layout, right down to how the chips were arranged.” Reviewers were even able to pull cards out of an Apple ][ motherboard, plug them into an ACE machine, and they’d work without any other modifications. And while I couldn’t verify this claim anywhere else, one retro hardware forum had a comment claiming “they outright stole the Apple BIOS code, including -- bad move -- the copyright notice, itself.”
Building a functional equivalent is one thing, making a direct copy in a different case is another.
It is now determined to be "bad" but the whole area wasn't as clearly legally defined as we think it is now. The courts could have almost as easily ruled for Franklin and determined that "BIOS" is a hardware implementation and not copyrightable.
Indeed. There was a movie about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper and I remember being surprised that one question that had to be addressed by the court in the patent trial was whether a circuit design was a patentable invention.
> Reviewers were even able to pull cards out of an Apple ][ motherboard, plug them into an ACE machine, and they’d work without any other modifications.
My God, such an Architecture might have become an Industry Standard!
> The ISA term was coined as a retronym by IBM PC clone manufacturers in the late 1980s or early 1990s as a reaction to IBM attempts to replace the AT bus with its new and incompatible Micro Channel architecture.
Most pirates are careful to strip out any copyright notices, but if Franklin did not consider themselves as pirates, then obviously the smart move is to retain the notice intact, because that is giving proper attribution. That seems like a good and ethical choice, considering the landscape at the time.
> Reviewers were even able to pull cards out of an Apple ][ motherboard, plug them into an ACE machine, and they’d work without any other modifications
Which was kind of the point? If I remember correctly Woz had patents related to the video generation hardware which Franklin did change to try to avoid infringing but I can’t remember if the court agreed that it did it successfully.
Exactly what I was thinking when reading the article. The author implies "the nerve of them", when they're simply providing exactly what they advertise: a 100% compatible machine.
I got the computer with an 80 column graphics card one floppy drive and an amber monitor. It was less than a similar Apple bundle. I got mine in December 1980. I also got a disk of copy programs and a floppy with a few pirated games. Those two got me started as an early pirate video game collector. That was freshman year of high school. I grew out of video games a few years later. I did use it for word processing in college. I had a decent dot matrix printer which had a parallel interface but I chose to take floppy to a study location with a small printing lab. I would copy my file from the 5.5" to a 3.5" pro-dos formatted disc. Then open the doc in Word on a Mac and get it formatted nicer. I don't recall if Word had Auto-Format back then. And laser print my paper for a sharp look. I still keep a licensed Word on hand just for that single feature. I printed a few papers using my Franklin to Smith Corona typewriter via a cable, had an english teacher who didn't want dot matrix and that was more fun than typing manually. Whew this brought back a flood of my early tech memories.
I'm scratching my head over your statement. You can see how they generated artifact color on the back porch of the colorburst by looking at the screen? You can see the phaase of their color reference wrt the pixel clock? Please explain.
I assume they meant the unintended rainbow-like color halos and vertical line artifacts plainly visible on a good crt, particularly on edges due to Woz's design where there is no direct pixel color really; rather, a "1" in a specific "phase" (odd or even column) of a pixel byte would tell the TV to output a certain color, like green or magenta. It simply walked the bits in memory as if they were chroma patterns, in rough approximation.
That said I'll read up on the linked article, I could me misremembering things.
Each “medium-res” pixel (140 across) on the screen could be seen to be three distinct colored pixels: red, blue and green. Purple was created by turning on the left two pixels, green the right most. Likewise red the leftmost and cyan the right two pixels. Only on a black and white display did you actually get 280 pixels without color artifacts.
They were able to get color working on the subsequent 1200 model. And I believe color was accessable via an expansion card, I didnt want to be staring at a tv at short distances so I was content to game in monochrome.
I dunno, the more I age the more I think that the wild west that was created during the initial boom of personal computers was the best thing that probably ever happened. Without it the 'PC' (and by this i mean personal computers) revolution may not have even happened (the ibm pc clone ecosystem BECAME the ECOSYSTEM and IBM was denied a monopoly). I think we would have been in the walled garden computing ecosystem immediately and it would have become much more extreme that even where we are today, cross compatibility would be shit, linux may never have happened, etc.
How many kids who's parents couldn't afford an apple computer got a franklin instead allowing that kid to grow up and invent great things both open and closed source.
I'm guessing Apple had stopped putting board schematics and ROM listings in their reference manuals by the time the ACE came out, or perhaps soon afterwards.
It isn't, but you can't get blood from a stone and squeezing costs money.
It sounds like the entity that the contract is with has no real assets and/or is based in a jurisdiction which is hard to enforce judgements in. That's a case where you need to get paid up-front, which is the real lesson in this article.
Seems like even under young voters more people support it than being against it; 30% of people aged 18-23 are strongly in favor, 57% of people in that age group supports it.
I wonder why? Maybe these types of surveys don’t consider the implementation / what you need to give up in order to have age verification?
Because the internet, for all it's good, has caused society and individuals some pretty serious problems. I don't like the idea of mandatory age verification, but having unrestricted internet access as a kid was objectively bad for me and many of the people I know.
> That is your parent’s fault that it was bad for you. So don’t punish me or anyone else because you never learned control.
I think you're suffering from a lack of empathy. That doesn't mean OS age verification should be implemented or not, but that you're going to be insufferable and pretty ignorant about what's going on.
IMHO, the popularity of age-verification is due to the increasing awareness of the harms of much online activity, plus the impracticality of putting the whole burden of mitigating that for children onto the shoulders of parents. If you flippantly and contemptuously ignore those concerns, people will be happy to ignore your concerns.
And since you brought it up: honestly, I wouldn't feel bad "punishing" you with this policy, just because of the attitude displayed in your comment. It's needlessly aggressive and making contemptuous assumptions. Your comment actually shoots your position in the foot.
> Look in the mirror as well. You started with the “punishing you just because”.
You actually introduced the "punishment" framing, which I think was unhelpful so mirrored it back to show that. You should also note that I scare-quoted it. And the point I was making was your attitude is harming your own advocacy.
> You’ve already rejected the advocacy why would I be trying to convince you of anything?
Dude, you need to step back and carefully re-read this thread. You have no idea what's going on, and seem to be trying to compensate for your ignorance with aggression.
You have an attitude problem, you're not going to be able to convince anyone of anything. And what's your reaction to being told about that? Show the same problem, over and over.
I don't think surveys like this are a meaningful indicator of societal attitudes.
"age verification" is not unlike "DEI" in that everyone will have different schemas about what it is and how it will be assumed to be implemented. We're not learning anything about the public unless we try to pose the question more directly.
Perhaps the voting population should first be made acutely aware of the extent of surveillance they are under, and how much age verification would expand that surveillance, and then be asked again.
They'll claim they already "know", but watch their opinion change after they get paper mail with a list of recently visited websites, or their words written on public or unencrypted chats, or their movement history thanks to phone spyware.
That's likely, but only if it's possible to materially articulate some specific negative ways in which age verification data is actually being used.
You and I can strongly suspect that there's a significant downside to these providers having so much sensitive personal data but, until that is proven, the voting population will only see the upside.
The death of online anonymity isn't negative and specific enough?
People understand this intuitively - hire someone to obviously follow them everywhere, record everything they do (or only as much as current surveillance records), and they'll want to put a quick stop to it. Do the same thing, but out of sight, out of mind, and their correctly evolved instincts fail to carry over.
I think you would need a lot more context to say if 0.019% is too high. If this platform is driving real operational improvements and is the core software backbone, then it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.
Why are Spain's courts allowing this injunction to stand? It's clearly being used to bring the court system itself into disrepute at this point.
reply