Lab equipment does the same thing. Decades ago, oscilloscopes started having banks of buttons corresponding to an area of the screen, and knobs that have context sensitive functionality.
Those can be placed side by side with buttons that have fixed purposes delineated by printed or debossed lettering.
I realize that we're getting pretty far from the automotive use-case, but this style has worked remarkably well over the years, and has made it into all sorts of equipment.
> Every database I listed is not the "Butlerian Jihad,"
I didn't say what you listed amounted to the "Butlerian Jihad," but you were clearly and deliberately implying that I said we should get rid of every database.
That's a strawman argument. You need to stop. Ok?
> Claiming this is a reason to dislike all databases coupled with your wistful statement "it's not like the old days..." sure looks like your advocating for the old days.
Nope. It's possible to dislike things and still compromise with them.
> Yes, which is why I mocked your dislike of all such databases
Right. You approached the conversation in bad faith. Quite a lot of that going on in this thread.
> a weird reference to ancient systems as if they were a better option.
A pointed reference to the fact that paper records couldn't be completely compromised remotely. A strength that's very, very pertinent to the discussion of a leak that includes ALL of California gun owners.
> But you chose the extremes.
This is precisely the strawman to which I was referring. YOU chose the extremes, not me. You've been told by the source (me) that this is not what was being said. Now you need to stop pretending it was.
I generally expect a higher level of conversation here than on certain other social media websites. I see that when it comes to political discussion, my expectations are unfounded.
It's true. Not all databases have equal impact, but you have to admit that we all have some incredibly sensitive information exposed to various different kinds of leaks and breaches.
And on one hand, your relationship with your government is not the same as your relationship with private entities. However, at some level it doesn't matter who leaked a particular piece of information. If your favorite gun store gets hacked, and your collection is exposed along with your address, the effect is essentially the same as if it were the government of California getting hacked.
Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No. I said this is a reason to dislike them.
Did I say we should go back to using paper recordkeeping for everything? No. Again, that was never argued.
Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad?
You misunderstand my statement. I was answering your question, not arguing that the leak was good.
I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as an effective deterrent to robbery, so it almost certainly can't help.
But you asked where the black market gets it's merchandise. Theft, smuggling, and straw purchases immediately spring to mind. It would be interesting to see data comparing the effectiveness of each.
By "a lot of opinions" you seem to mean that I gave two suggestions of possible sources of firearms, and then openly admitted I don't know how they compare to theft.
Would you rather I have simply stated those two sources and omitted the part about not having the data to compare the quantity of firearms obtained through those sources?
Do you have access to data we could use to make this comparison?
As has been stated elsewhere, straw purchases are probably a major source. Smuggling is possible too. I couldn't say how these compare to theft, because I've never seen any solid data on the topic.
This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that hold this kind of information. These days, your personal info is at the mercy of your bank, your ISP, and a number of other entities who could leak data at any time just by being slightly complacent with security.
It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to haul tons of paper around and go through it manually.
> "we should therefore break the First Amendment and let government censor"
I never said any such thing. Please don't misrepresent my comments.
> we're talking about CDNs. Not ISPs.
I'm actively discussing both. Legislation regulating who can censor what must necessarily start with ISPs before we can even think about regulating edge providers.
> Bing?
You can't move to bing, because you're not the one searching for your website.
> So's me telling my kids to be quiet and eat their dinner. It's thankfully 100% legal.
I'm saying it shouldn't be legal for corporations to suppress speech in this way.
I've pointed this out many times, but Randal conflates freedom of speech with the first amendment of the US Constitution (and other similar protections against government interference) with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech goes way beyond freedom from government censorship... And it isn't some mystical unlimited right that trumps all other rights.
> Right, which is why I'm baffled someone worried about free speech would be happy with giving them that power.
Ok, I'll try again. Corporations can actively censor you. The government is more restricted in what speech it can stomp on.
> Sure there is - you go elsewhere.
How do you "go elsewhere" when Comcast refuses to allow customers to see your website?
How do you "go elsewhere" when google delists you?
If 8ch gets hosted in a foreign country after being delisted from google and refused by US hosts, that's censorship. That's an infringement on freedom of speech.
If you're ok with that freedom of speech, then you are saying that it's ok for corporations to censor. That's a coherent stance... but one with which I vehemently disagree. I don't want ANYONE to have the power to censor, but with multinational mega-corps controlling the vast majority of the internet, that's simply not possible.
Considering the fact that internet providers and online services control the vast majority of the content I consume, I'd much rather have some regulation that limits what these companies can do.
The US government, at least, has explicit restrictions on how it can censor speech. They're required to abide by the 1st amendment, and even have requirements for due process and such.
By contrast, none of the corporations that host the sites you use daily have any such restrictions. If Google wants to delist your website, that's too bad for you. If AWS no longer wants to host it, you have no recourse. If Comcast decides to block you, there's nothing you can do.
Do you want the corporations that control everything you see on the internet to be more neutral? That will require oversite by the government (probably the FCC specifically).
If you want to be really cynical, you could say the government is controlled by corporate money... but then what does it matter?
IMO, blind cynicism isn't helping anyone, and the government is at least ostensibly supposed to do what's in the interest of the nation, and has some limits about what it can and cannot censor. I'd rather that, than an amoral corporation motivated only by money.
I don't think there's a contradiction between supporting freedom of expression and suggesting that such a freedom isn't absolute. There are limits, particularly when the use of that freedom treads on the freedoms of others.
Even US law recognizes this. You're not allowed to invite violence or rioting for example. There are also rules about perjury, liable, and other things that directly limit freedom of expression.
The real questions we should be asking here are where the line is between stating an opinion and inciting violence... And what should ISPs and edge providers be asked/allowed to do?
Because not being forced to provide a platform for the speech of someone else may also be a valid freedom. If I come into your property and say things you don't like, are you allowed to ask me to leave? What if I put up a sign in my front yard? Can I take it down?
IMO, we need neutrality regulations to protect ourselves from the corporations who control everything we see... But such neutrality regulations must necessarily include ISPs as well as edge providers. Otherwise they're worthless.
Integer in all programming languages I've seen so far means infinite precision with limited range.
Floating point numbers are used for values that have finite precision but typically much larger range.
I guess I'm making a distinction between precision and range. I was pretty sure they couldn't be used interchangeably. Now I'm seeing "precision" being used to describe the size of the integer. I feel like that's a bit of a misnomer.
As someone mostly stuck in the C, C++, C#, assembly, and BASIC, this is new to me.
In those languages, an integer is actually infinite precision with limited range. A quick Google shows that the "number" primitive in JavaScript is a double. Are you telling me JavaScript has NO integer type?
Maybe I haven't seen enough languages yet, but that seems pretty crazy to me.
Those can be placed side by side with buttons that have fixed purposes delineated by printed or debossed lettering.
I realize that we're getting pretty far from the automotive use-case, but this style has worked remarkably well over the years, and has made it into all sorts of equipment.