conciselyverbose

Yeah, but it's mostly the ones you'd expect.

It generally wasn't real known brands. They just spam you with their own nonsense.

Because others marked the review as helpful, Amazon increased its visibility on the product page, just as the Barons "were executing a plan to triple their annual sales to $3 million in 2020"

The fact that any returned diaper is resold is fucked. "Amazon should have inspected it" isn't good enough and whoever is in charge of the policy for returns of a diaper to ever be resold can screw off.

If it's Amazon, and Amazon is responsible for that diaper being shipped back out, that review should definitely be removed.

But regardless, "we were just about to triple our sales" is best case complete nonsense, and worst case nonsense stacked with scalping essential goods during a pandemic.

I don't think they will. I think the law is reasonably clear and they've been shut down on similar nonsense in the past.

I just meant to point out that I'm not just laughing at them failing and pirates will succeed regardless, because the implications of even one win with the consistent legal and political pressure they keep applying could get pretty bad for everyone pretty quickly. It's a real threat every time they pull harassment shit like this and don't get immediately slapped down by the judge.

Nothing federated. I respect everyone who makes it possible, and there's an actual path to me being willing to participate, unlike corporate social media, but the level of exposure/overhead to prevent having genuinely bad shit touch my server is not something I'm comfortable with. I want stuff I can ignore for a week and not have the end of the world happen, which means at most user generated content from people I know personally.

In terms of what I'm currently hosting, just some mild personal content servers and a discord bot running a couple games on small servers with friends.

I'd like to get further into a personal site, to share my pictures/videos with friends, document/share my reading in ways goodreads and available alternatives don't do, and similar things like that that I genuinely am fine if no one looks at, but I can tell a friend "yeah, these are my favorite psychology books with a blurb on each", and "these are my favorite fiction series (actually organized by series as first class citizens, because no one really does that) with quick summaries of what I like about them", etc. I do a couple of the lists on goodreads, but you can't do blurbs on series, do lists by series, it won't even display your lists ordered or with your reviews properly included any more, and ultimately I'm going to track it all anyways so I want it structured and displayed in a way that actually makes sense to me.

I don't really want social media features and I definitely don't want to try to "grow it" or any of that nonsense, but ultimately I want to better track and organize all of that and don't really love the tools available, so rolling my own and "I might as well pretty up the presentation and make some of it public facing to discuss with friends" once I get the proper structuring handled.

I said it's already way over the line, but finding them liable would be an inherent push to go way farther when we should be criminalizing all of it.

Fining them a penny would be a catastrophic ruling that would massively degrade the internet. Holding an ISP vicariously liable for the actions of their users is a massive call to action for an obscene level of censorship.

I already take as much action as is reasonable to protect my privacy, but this isn't about me specifically.

A hit to a vest definitely has a real chance to kill him. Vests distribute the impact, but they're still massive chest trauma for a 70-something dude.

TLDR: he thinks the techniques are fine and you can just brute force them for the foreseeable future.

The problem isn't really just piracy, though. I buy my content and I'm vehemently opposed to anything like this.

Because it's about control. Fuck most ISPs, but finding them liable gives them not just license, but effectively a mandate to massively spy on what users are doing on their connection and to even further restrict and shape what users are allowed to do on the internet. And we're already way past the line in that direction.

They made a point of mentioning the clarity and extensibility of the Python codebase as well (not sure if it was the article of the original blog) as making it easier to modify. They could have forked the code if they thought git was clearly better.

Our code base has grown organically and its internal dependencies are very complex. We could have spent a lot of time making it more modular in a way that would be friendly to a source control tool, but there are a number of benefits to using a single repository. Even at our current scale, we often make large changes throughout our code base, and having a single repository is useful for continuous modernization. Splitting it up would make large, atomic refactorings more difficult. On top of that, the idea that the scaling constraints of our source control system should dictate our code structure just doesn’t sit well with us.

This is from the blogpost it links near the beginning. Also worth a read if you're interested.

Just divide that number by pi.

Then you can reasonably approximate with a ruler over the top with no math.

There are people who do; I'm not disputing that.

But it's a very small minority. You're cutting out like 90+% of a potential demo audience by demanding cash on the barrel head up front. It's objectively worse for the customer by a significant margin.