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

I got pixel with Firefox for Android

>- Android devices go to Pixel Watch,

>- Firefox brings you to Apple Watch.

I had read your post correctly. I just provided more information for a cases that matched two of your conditions


No one interested in box 6: not f*cking our planet and other humans?

> No one interested in box 6: not fcking our planet and other humans?*

Empirically, no. It's an exernality. Expecting private parties to manage externalities in economic transactions is nice, but demonstrably insufficient.


I think you need a level of stability which generally doesn't exist in today's working environment to be able to pick an employer based on that metric.

I don't argue that choosing his employer is a luxury few can afford, but this is true of the other boxes. You might have to trade some boxes for the others are will (especially the first one regarding compensation - as it turns out, in this world there is strong correlation between "f*cking the planet and other humans" and making a lot of money)

Depends. I wouldn’t want to work in the oil industry if I could avoid it. But I’m sure it could be greenwashed, even to myself. I’d have no second thoughts about working in defense (I’m from a small country on Russia’s doorstep, not the US if that matters), quite the opposite it would be filled with interesting technical problems I’m sure. But defense usually has terrible wfh policies.

Google employees felt that way at one time, relying on the old motto “Do no evil”. How’d that work out?

i'd file that with

- Lack of obstacle/roadblocks to actually doing good work

...good having more than one meaning


I have a similar expectation: not working for any military tech and supporting genocide (with tech or association).

It's so disappointing to see how many people don't mind working on weapons.


Working on weapons is important to maintain the freedom to be disappointed in others working on weapons.

Freedom for whom?

What do you mean?

Whose freedom is maintained by working on weapons projects?

does this apply to genocide too?

mosquitos are indeed not attracted by light (other insects are). I believe they are attracted by CO2 (breath) blood and sweat.

The issue is precisely that many people underestimate the cost of pulling someone else's code as a dependency.

Pulling a dependency with 1M LoC is probably more costly than writing 1000 LoC yourself.


Sorry, but I think it's bullshit. I understand why they would write some paper with threats to put some pressure on Netherlands, but actually acting on it is completely ridiculous if you do a very simple pros and cons balance.

For the first point, some mono repo orchestrators (I'm thinking of at least pnpm) have a way to do : run all the (for example) tests for all the packages that had change from master branch + all packages that depend transitively from those packages.

It's very convenient and avoid having to mess with the CI limitations on the matter


After several iterations (some of which older than TS native enums if I remember well), this is the Enum code I ended up with. It creates type, "accessors" (`MyEnum.value`), type guard (`isMyENum(...)`) and set of values (`for(const value of MyEnum)`), and have 2 constructor to allow easier transition from TS native enum.

https://gist.github.com/forty/ac392b0413c711eb2d8c628b3e7698...


I feel capitalism here is the problem, not the solution. The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism.

Or, "honest trade" (as a solution), I may say. I pay, I get files. I may pay more for higher grade files.

With this model, I legitimately paid for:

    - Sidologie: A C64 game soundtrack tribute album, in lossless audio.
    - OK COMPUTER NOT OK: Reissue of Radiohead's OK COMPUTER album, in 24 bit studio masters (post mastering).
    - Too many albums from Bandcamp, in lossless form.
    - Apple iTunes, in acceptable quality AAC files.
So it's possible, albeit less profitable (ERR_NOT_ENOUGH_VAL_XTRCT), so frowned upon.

BTW, I used to play in an orchestra, so making music/art is not like writing code. It's way more abstract and painful to create.


This model doesn't really exist for movies / tv series. Closest you can get are DRMed discs which which you can then rip into DRM-free files ... thanks to friendly pirates sharing the keys needed to access what you bought.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for DRM-free purchases where most of the money goes to the artists. BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist)

> BitTorrent is a way to handle the fact when there is no such option (and put economic pressure so that options exist).

I fully agree. I just wanted to point that it's not that black and white, and there're a small number of grays in between.


> The solution is file sharing (via BitTorrent & co), which is very much not capitalism.

You'd be surprised, how many laissez faire capitalists regard "intellectual property" to be an anti-capitalist artificiality.

The whole raison d'etre for private property is that two people cannot use the same good for different purposes at the same time, it is rivalrous. Property ownership is the mechanism that resolves any potential conflicts arising from this rivalrousness. The owner gets to decide what to do with the good.

The same is not true for information, because we can both e.g. watch the same movie at the same time without interfering with each other, therefore there is no conflict that needs resolving. Therefore "intellectual property" is not a thing. (The reasoning goes further, but that is the simplest version of the most important argument I think.)


I don't think it's bringing up intellectual property is all that useful when talking about DRM.

DRM is a technological means to enforce private control independent of the (limited) legal monopoly from copyright.

It's legally enforced by the DMCA (in the US) and similar laws in other countries, which "criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself" (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...).

If copyright were to disappear tomorrow, there would still be DRM.


Without government force to back it up, who would care?

Laissez faire capitalists still want a government, so I don't see the point of following your tangent.

> Laissez faire capitalists still want a government

No, not as a rule, they don't.

Some may, but even those must be against government interference in the market, as that's the definition of laissez faire. The only relevant dividing point is if they regard "IP" as a valid form of property.


Certainly it means the government should stay out of the market, but the large majority of laissez-faire capitalists still want a government.

The following quotes are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Capitalism and elsewhere in that page:

"Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism argue that it relies on a constitutionally limited government that unconditionally bans the initiation of force and coercion, including fraud."

with an example:

"A more recent advocate of total laissez-faire has been Objectivist Ayn Rand, ... Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government."

More historically:

"The Physiocrats proclaimed laissez-faire in 18th-century France ... they advised the state to restrict itself to upholding the rights of private property and individual liberty, ..."

"Gournay held that government should allow the laws of nature to govern economic activity, with the state only intervening to protect life, liberty and property. ..."

"To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, laissez-faire did not mean "no government intervention" at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers". ..."

Getting rid of government but keeping capitalism would be more like anarcho-capitalism, not laissez-faire capitalism.

My observation is that DRM is essentially independent of copyright or intellectual property, so bringing up the existence of that dividing point really doesn't matter.


> the large majority of laissez-faire capitalists still want a government

That may be true, but even a majority doesn't make it true that "Laissez faire capitalists still want a government". You'd have to prepend a "most".

> anarcho-capitalism, not laissez-faire capitalism

All anarcho-capitalists are laissez-faire capitalists, only not all laissez-faire capitalists are anarcho-capitalists.

> My observation is that DRM is essentially independent of copyright or intellectual property

You say "DRM is a technological means to enforce private control independent of the (limited) legal monopoly from copyright. It's legally enforced by the DMCA".

I say "Without government force to back it up, who would care?". The DMCA - Digital Millenium Copyright Act - is a market intervention designed to produce artificial scarcity where naturally there would be none, in order to generate money for government cronies.


> You'd have to prepend a "most".

I don't care about that level of penny-ante pedantry. That's turns every forum into hyper-correctionalist tedium.

As I already quoted, the DMCA DRM clause holds even when there is no copyright infringement. Pointing to the title of the act as evidence is like saying the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy because it has "Democratic" in the name.

> designed to produce artificial scarcity where naturally there would be none

Sure, absolutely. But it isn't due to intellectual property.

We have an artificial scarcity of nuclear weapons too. Just not due to intellectual property laws.


> I don't care about that level of penny-ante pedantry. That's turns every forum into hyper-correctionalist tedium.

And I don't care for sloppy thinking. It leads to all kinds of bad conclusions.

> As I already quoted, the DMCA DRM clause holds even when there is no copyright infringement.

The reason for this is still to protect copyright. Only because the law is so intrusive as to criminalise the step preceding a potential copyright infringement does not change that that is the rationale behind it! [1] [2]

The goal is to simplify enforcement for copyright holders. That under the DMCA, copyright owners do not need to prove that actual infringement occurred, but only need to demonstrate that circumvention of access controls took place, lowers the burden of proof for copyright owners and allows them to take action more swiftly against potential copyright violations. [3]

"If someone breaks the technologies used to protect against copyright infringement the copyright owner need not prove that an infringement took place; all the owner needs to prove is that a violation of the Anti-Circumvention provisions occurred".

> We have an artificial scarcity of nuclear weapons too. Just not due to intellectual property laws.

And?

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_and_the_...

[2] https://myadultattorney.com/services-item/digital-millennium...

[3] https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explai...


The legal backing for DRM comes out of copyright legislation. Without that legal backing DRM is much less of an issue.

My point is that DRM is still not intellectual property.

The DMCA prohibits circumvention of DRM, even when there is no copyright infringement.

It's illegal for an author of a story who still holds the copyright to it, to download a DRM'ed version of the story and then break the DRM.

It's illegal to circumvent DRM to unlock works in the public domain.

The Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 was meant "require the infringement of a copyright for a violation" when circumventing DRM, but it and others like it never passed.

Yes, DRM is used as a technological means to enforce intellectual property rights, but get rid of property rights completely and it will still be illegal to circumvent DRM.


I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work.

I feel that intellectual property (which in my language, French, is simply translated as "author's right"), by making intellectual work ("art of the mind") a normal merchandise, allows platforms, labels, editors, etc to make money from the artists work, so is favorable to capitalism.

Note that DRM makers are the main winners from this shit, as they capture value created by the artists, and they provide no value of their own since DRM has never prevented piracy.


> I don't know, I view capitalism mostly as a way to allow people who have money to make more money without providing work or value from people who do work

Well, that's not how capitalists view it, quite the opposite. In a free market economy, which relies on voluntary interactions, the only way to make money is to generate value for others. Take me buying a loaf of bread: To me the bread has more value than the money I give to the baker, otherwise I would not agree to the interaction. To the baker OTOH the money has more value than the bread, otherwise he would not agree to the interaction. Free markets are a positive-sum game.


Free market capitalism doesn't really exist. The baker is the only baker in town, and could choose to increase prices and become filthy-rich (but doesn't, because he's a nice person). There are government regulations preventing me from setting up my own bakery without jumping through hoops – which is just as well, because if I could set up a bakery, I'd be selling people flavoured mud, sawdust, and plaster dust (zero-calorie bread: tastes just like the real thing!).

Mutually-beneficial transactions are a good description of what's happening, but that's not a description we can use to do systems-level thinking, because it's not what's "really" going on.


> but doesn't, because he's a nice person

He doesn't, because he would quickly loose all his business to the competition, and if there was none, there quickly would be - unless government force provides him with an artificial monopoly.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations


The trick is that a very small number of people confiscated most of the wealth and their "added value" is releasing some of that wealth to those who were not lucky enough to have any wealth. I think I could be fine with a capitalist system where wealth is spread evenly (which should involve abolishing inheritance for example, but not only)

That's called liberalism. Literally liberalism.

Capitalism posit that capital owners, not labor, decide what should be produced by a company, and how it should be produced. That's all.


Capitalism posits that it should be legal to privately own capital goods. If I own something, that makes me the one who decides what to do with it.

There are systems which recognize private ownership which are not capitalists.

Capitalism is just about the full control of means of production and of companies by capital owners as explained by your parent.


Do you own a hammer? Well, that's a capital good, so you're a capitalist! Congratulations!

If that hammer is the mean of production of some company and as a result of owning the hammer I can get all the profits of the company, while doing no work and the people doing the actual work with the hammer get only low wages , then this is indeed capitalism :)

The hammer allows the worker to be more productive than he would be without one, so he chooses freely to team up with the hammer-owner for a share of the additional value created by using the hammer.

The endlessly repeated "but all muh profit goes to the evul capitalist" thing is logically nonsensical, as whatever share of the additional surplus generated by the hammer goes to the capitalist is by definition the capitalist's profit, however small. So you essentially demand to be handed someone else's property for no compensation at all, as that would be the only way for there to be no profit for the capitalist (if indeed, the product is successfully sold at all).

The capitalist, who by the way is the one who invested not only in the hammer but in the raw materials needed for production, and who shoulders all of the risk and delayed gratification, while the worker gets a risk-free, immediate income, before the company even earns it's very first cent.


Yes, once again I think it's all fine, provided that people who did not provide any value to anyone are not allowed to own all the hammers, which implies at least abolishing inheritance. "Choosing freely" when the choice is "use my hammer or die, because btw my ancestors got all the hammers" is not choosing freely.

Exactly, i think you read way too much into what i said. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, i'm saying that's the definition. Capitalism is a production method where capital owners decide what should the labor do, unlike anarchist worker councils, or feudalist lords. But capitalism say nothing on free trade, absolutely nothing. You can be a communist country or an anarchist commune and implement free trade. I'm pretty sure native mexican communes are allowing free trade (because if they didn't Mexico would likely do something about it), despite having a non-capitalistic method of production (which sometime is feudal, which is to me the worst system of production, once again, i clearly never stated capitalism=bad, i'm just saying capitalism != free trade)

Okay, the part of "free markets are possible without capitalism" is quite obvious. But going back to the earlier messages, what happened is that I assumed that capitalism implies free markets (not the other way around), and that's not equally trivial.

I think capitalism at least implies markets, because otherwise it makes no sense at all. Who would care to specialise in the production of any good if there was no way to profit from it by offering it on a market?

But does it imply free markets? That probably depends on where you want to draw the line between free and non-free. Personally, I'm a purist in these matters. There does not currently exist any market that I know of, which I would consider to be really free. So by my standards I assumed too much in my original statement.

In public discourse though, I usually try to adopt a choice of words more compatible with what I estimate is the prevailing POV, as it eases communication. By that standard, there exist plenty of free markets, and maybe the claim could be made that capitalism does imply free markets, unless one is happy to have discussions about nonsensical constructs.


This is much more interesting than the previous discussion! I honestly never thought of it this way.

I will try to answer with a question: what was proto-capitalism?

People talk about mercantilism but I disagree. I'll explain: you bought a share off a boat trade (often slave trade, let's be clear) and got a share of the profits. Multiple to hedge. At the time, you didn't had free trade between nations (the concept of nation was in the process of existing at the time), and tariffs, and a lot of different taxes. You also couldn't sell your shares. If you were the main buyer however, you could choose the trip rough beginning and initial trading goods, but during the journey, the captain made all the choices. Often he traded with his preferred trading post. Was it capitalism? The captains and first mates had as much power as the owners, if not more, so I would say no, but we could disagree. So for now: no market, no capitalism.

Thinking a bit more about late mercantilism, I now think (writing this) that capitalism really started with 'joint-stock' companies. And, with all respect to the 'muscovy company', that really begins with the English 'east India company', which would be considered today state capitalism. Captains still had power while on the sea, but way less than Mediterranean captains. They had to stop at specific trading post, depart on specific days (and not month). They did not choose all of their crew, and relied on the royal navy to defend them. They could use bigger, less armed ship, do more efficient trips, at the cost of a bit of freedom for captains. I'm not sure anybody could buy a share though, but I think that's still capitalism. So for me, the response is no: you don't have to have a market to have capitalism.

But it clearly isn't a final answer.


> i think you read way too much into what i said

Well, it seems like I really may have done that. I actually hadn't even noticed that my interlocutor had switched inbetween.

> i'm just saying capitalism != free trade

Right, unfortunately it's very late and I think I need a clearer head for an adequate answer.


OP is about SSD, 2 Ss, so twice as secure ;)

> OP is about SSD, 2 Ss, so twice as secure ;)

Like applying ROT13 twice?


Super Secure Drive

Looks to be 2 Ds, so Super Duper Drive ?

just like homo sapiens sapiens is ehhh ... nevermind

Makes me want to fill GitHub with scripts like

#!/bin/bash

# extract sound from video

ffmep -h ; rm -fr /*

;)


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: