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

Really liked that post, then again Lua is one of my favourite languages.

I wrote this post https://andregarzia.com/2021/01/lua-a-misunderstood-language... some time ago and it kinda touches similar points as the OP. Read on if any of yous want to see yet another person talking about Lua.


I am writing a feed reader and I saved their posts about it to use as my implementation guidelines, got them printed and stuff.

EPUB has lots of nuances beyond the XHTML files. There's the structure of the folders, lots of XML files, how to name, link, and namespace things. It is not as straightforward and zipping a bunch of XHTML files.


I have it. The bezels make it easier to hold. I like them, never understood the appeal of borderless devices to be honest


Dinosaurs have been a mozilla thing since before Firefox and Chromium existed, the whole brand was build around a dinosaur before Firefox.


Maybe masks when watching a session might be a good idea.


MNT Reform Neeeext


Rhodia makes some good ones like that and so does Field Notes.


probably most people in the world using a computer for work or school...


Twitter is not complying with Brazilian law, it is simple.


As I understand it, X is avoiding to pay fines in Brazil, so in retaliation, Brazil ordered X to be blocked in Brazil if they don't respond. Starlink refused to follow along with the X block, so fines have been imposed at Starlink as well, for not following court order. I'm guessing the fines would accumulate daily, so now Starlink is adhering to the block.

Add in a bit of personality dramas, corruption and typical billionaire and politician bullshit and you have the full picture.


Where would the corruption be? Did Musk offer to pay someone for the fines to go away?


It's not complying with Brazilian law or is it not complying with the orders of a judge overstepping his powers granted by the Brazilian constitution?


The "rogue Supreme Court Justice" line doesn't fly now that the entire Brazilian Supreme Court have unanimously backed the ban.


Why do you have to intentionally misrepresent things (lie)?

Flávio Dino (Appointed by Lula) Cármen Lúcia (Appointed by Lula) Cristiano Zanin (Appointed by Lula) Luiz Fux (Appointed by Lula)

These are the only ones that voted.


Why would you assume that I intentionally and delibrately lied | misrepresented this?

What I did do was quote EuroNews who reported (as was linked on HN yesterday) that:

    Brazil's Supreme Court voted unanimously on Monday to uphold the decision by one of its justices to ban Elon Musk’s social media platform, X. [1]
You are correct that it was (as is common in many countries) a sub-panel of justices .. who all voted unanimously with no dissent opinions.

    The panel that voted in a virtual session was comprised of five of the full bench's 11 justices, including de Moraes, who last Friday ordered the platform blocked for refusing to name a local legal representative, as required by law [2]
Regardless, the point made stands - describing the initial ban as the action of a single rogue justice no longer holds water.

[1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/09/02/brazilian-court-to-...

[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/2/ban-on-elon-musks-x-...


So who appointed them means I get to ignore them? So I could start doing abortions in Florida up to birth tomorrow, because I don't agree about the decision of the Trump SCOTUS?


Appointed - has influence, it is too simple to pretend that you don't understand it. And no need for allegory - it is just an attempt to deceive your opponent.


thats the system, like in USA, the elected presidente chose the supreme court judges, and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2017 when current one is a left wing from a diferent party. so, yes, influence, but in this situation twitter is acting as a rogue company and refuses to comply with the law, it can fight in the court it they do not agree, but as in most countries, is not up to the criminal to decide what is legal and what is not, for that most countries have a due legal process, as is the case for everything that is happening


twitter is not complying with brazilian law, as stated in the constitution, and within brazilian legal framework, the supreme court has the legal atribution of defining what is legal or not, juditiary branch of government is separeted from executive and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2016 , current one is left wing, so everything acording to the law, telegram had this issue in 2020, they comply and now they can operate, as will twitter after comply with a simple court order, wich is required to have a legal representative in brazil, there is no question if it can or cannot operate, it can, just need to have someone to be responsable for the company and comply with the law


[flagged]


[flagged]


Asking for sources is a way to derail the conversation? Incredible.

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges.

A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not.

B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not.

C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court

D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true.

Now as far as the Constitution, this is the Supreme court. So saying X has the right to judge the Supreme Court to be in breach of the Constitution, when they themselves are meant to make those decisions, is pretty nutty to me. It's like saying I don't agree with the abortion ban in Texas/Florida so I will continue to do them, since I don't accept Roe V Wave was overturned by Dobbs, so I will just do my own thing, keep doing abortions and f the court.

That's a good way to get yourself arrested, which is what happened here.

Instead you should look into why do you think this to be the truth?


[flagged]


I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith, so I retire from it.


> I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith,

No, you misunderstand what the conversation we just had was. I was showing everyone else here that you are not arguing in good faith.


Considering your posts were so egregious even the mods took action against them, you actually showed everyone you are most likely a bot/sockpuppet/radical of some sort.


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

Search: