Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | DasIch's comments login

Have you ever read anything by RMS on what he calls Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)? I can't think of many large businesses who aren't "guilty" of that.

This looks like the SaaSS article:


The payoff comes at the very end, "Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake."

Nah, I'll pay someone to do compute (and maintain the API, infrastructure, etc.) for me. I'm a huge free software advocate, but in the SaaS situation, I'm not paying for a program, I'm paying for results.

As such, it's immaterial how I get those results--they could have a roomful of people arranging bits by hand. (What if that's how they were doing it? Would that represent a loss of freedom, if I were paying people to shuffle bits by hand?)

This particular essay seems like the RMS take on that old saw, "if all you have is a hammer..."

The loss of freedom, in your case, is control over the development direction of your tools. If the tools match your business, fine. Let's hope they still do in a few years.

If the match is only partial, your choice is between lobbying for tool change from your vendor, or conforming your business to match the tool.

> There is not one single global point of failure, which has other implications regarding things like censorship.

In other words it doesn't just ignore abuse and harrassment one of the biggest problems - maybe the biggest problem - twitter has a communications platform, it practically encourages it.

I expect there are ways to make something both resistant to harassment and resistant to censorship.

Like, suppose a network was designed with those as its primary 2 goals. I don't think that would be totally unachievable.

DewDrop (I might have gotten the name mixed up with another thing by neyer) and related things seem not inconsistent with decentralized things, and they seem like they could be used for combating harassment. (e.g. by setting a minimum relative reputation for people sending one things in order to see the things, people who were more likely to be targeted could set a higher minimum, while people who no one knew could set a minimum of 0, or even something slightly negative. Someone who wanted to see everything sent to them could set it to the minimum allowed number.) (the relative reputation is constructed based on the individual, and does not rely on an authority thing to work).

I haven't used gnusocial, but I'd imagine they have a ignore/block-user feature.

Copying the design of Twitter and Facebook. What a great way to make a good first impression and to respect the copyright the GNU project cares so much about. I can't imagine a better way to show everyone just how amazing you are.

The free software community must be truly happy to have such amazing supporters on their side.

Do you understand that GNU got started by copying Unix?

You can copy a product without violating copyright, although there have been several court cases on this topic.

Of course you can copy the product as such, that's fine by me and I think even necessary.

They've gone far beyond that here though, copying not just the product but significant parts of the design. The Quitter thing looks almost exactly like Twitter. If they'd copied the website of a bank like this, it would be considered phishing.

This is well beyond copying an idea or a few design concepts.

I thought they where just using bootstrap which was created by twitter. I'd say 50% of the web looks like twitter today...

EDIT: OK, I take that back... After looking at some of these sites, some have really copied the design waaaay to much.

You can implement ostatus however you like. It just so happens the most popular implementations are just clones of the Facebook / Twitter looks because they are familiar.

There are more servers than just these, and most of them have unique UIs.

This only affects Street View which Google has abandonded in Germany.

I know that google uses street view to determine street addresses by OCRing the numbers on the side of houses. Maybe even more of their mapping relies on it?

> One would think Europe would change immigration law to encourage people who would naturally have some affinity or ties to the region.

No offense but this affinity people especially from the US seem to have appears from this side like nothing more than a weird fetish driven by nothing more than fantasy. Especially for Germany this is incredibly weird because there is often a certain pride associated with being "German" that would get you considered a nazi in Germany.

If you're well educated and can get a job in Europe, immigrating should be quite easy already. I see no reason to make it easy for people just because some ancestor happened to be from Europe.

The trip to Europe is incredibly dangerous, it's much safer for the young men to come first to find a way to help the rest of the family to flee more safely. Germany until recently had a program specifically for that.

Additionally men are drafted by the Syrian government. In other words there are areas in Syria that are fairly safe for children, women and the elderly that aren't all that safe to be in, if you're a men and have no means to escape the draft.

All of that combined means that you have a bias towards male refugees, especially when it comes to images you see in the media of refugees fleeing with boats.

Feminism wasn't always as intersectional as it is now. For a long time it was dominated by white women who wanted more equality ignoring and sometimes even opposing equality for people and women of color. Suffragettes are a very good example of this problem.

There are a few people now that feel a similar thing is happening in the tech industry right now as well. In that diversity is promoted only in so far as it helps white women but not any other underrepresented groups.

Yeah, whereas now it's dominated by white women who get book deals off the back of their supposed anti-racist credentials, whereas the black activists who they got their arguments from (and watered them down, naturally) languish unmentioned in obscurity. There's a a lot of complicated history and anger behind the distrust of white feminist activists, most of which I don't think ever reached the mainstream media in any meaningful form, going right up to probably the present day even.

I can't deny that I feel some amount of Schadenfreude. And also a strange longing for popcorn.

To further extend from the suffrage movement, it is important to note that minorities (men & women) didn't legally have the right to vote until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

So Sanchez has a point in claiming that historical precedence has shown that "discrimination" was thought to have ended after the suffrage movement when it wasn't until many years later that minorities were legally secured the right to vote. Hence the hierarchy is that white women are the "next-in-line" when it comes to diversity before any other type of minority group.

> For a long time it was dominated by white women who wanted more equality ignoring and sometimes even opposing equality for people and women of color

Some of the early suffragettes - including the first female senator in the US[0] - were not just racist, but outright white supremacists.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Latimer_Felton#Racial_...

She might've been racist as fuck, but I seriously do not get how she could be declared as "one of the biggest barriers to progress". She wasn't even allowed to vote, god damnit.

It's completely incoherent. If the power is overwhelmingly in the hands of straight white man, than straight white women very unlikely to become not some of the biggest "barriers to progress."

White women make progress towards equality faster than any other group that's being discriminated.

The argument is that instead of focusing on the core issue that discrimination is inherently bad and needs to be fought against, white women put the focus specifically on them. This means other groups are ignored until white women have achieved their goals until a new conversation can be started.

I'm not sure whether other groups would have made progress sooner without this problem but it's a possiblity and that would make white women significant barrier.

I admit it's hard to go from that further to biggest barrier but I don't think one should discard that notion too easily. "Moderates" pushing for some bad compromise is the worse is better of politics. MLK famously considered white moderates to be a bigger issue than racist groups at one point.

That seems to be humanity in a nutshell - fuck you, got mine.

Most of us are not altruistic enough to put other people ahead of us and ours. Self > family > clan > tribe > race > everybody else. However you choose to segment your identity up and what characteristics you base it upon, that's generally the hierarchy of fucks you give about other people.

That's a problem that needs to called attention to, critizied and addressed but not accepted.

It's a hard problem we've been working on for at least a couple thousand years. When we find the universal solution, the philosophers can pack it in.

Meanwhile, I've got to live as best I can in the world as it exists, rather than as I might ideally like it. There's a lot of smaller, more manageable windmills out there.

Safer has a connotation of safety whereas ungefährlicher has a connotation of danger.

If something that would have killed you before, is less likely to do so now you would call it ungefährlicher or less dangerous but you wouldn't call it safer unless you're intending to be funny.

Native German here: ungefährlich means "not dangerous" also "safe" or "harmless".

so "=== gefahrlos" ?

Not really a good explanation. Ungefärlich is more like "harmless" in English. Yes, it contains the word "harm", but there's a modifier that inverts its meaning.

If that limit can't be broken, it would massively slow down space travel though. Our civilization currently consumes more resources than can be replenished. What if other civilizations have the same problem and can't travel to other planets before resource starvation comes in?

> What if other civilizations have the same problem and can't travel to other planets before resource starvation comes in?

They probably die.

Traveling to other planets is relatively easy; in our system it takes just a few years using the cheapest chemical boosters + ion engines. A nuclear rocket engine (quite feasible) would probably lower the travel time noticeably. Communication delays in the range of a few hours maximum are not a significant problem either.

It's traveling to other star systems what is hard.

OTOH we live in a relatively sparsely populated neck of galactic woods; thicker clusters of stars exist with much shorter interstellar distances. Conditions there are usually deadly for us, though.

> If that limit can't be broken, it would massively slow down space travel though.

Yes. So? I reiterate my previous argument.

Indeed and wouldn't they have been "interrupted" they very well might have developed further towards space travel or is there anything to suggest that they wouldn't have progressed further technologically?

Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact