tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

I understand you about the implied contract. I think it's more complex than that. People were making videos before the promise of ad revenue, and they were better videos. If people go away who make videos for money - which will never happen - it would be an improvement overall. If ad blockers do win, YT could edit their ads into the videos themselves making an ad blocker's job harder. YTers who want money could make their own independent deals with advertisers, as some do today. And YT can always charge money - as they do right now with premium. But if YT did that for all tiers, they couldn't dominate and they'd have competitors spring up. They know that. They also know if they ever asked anyone whether they agree to watch ads, most would say No. The prevalence of Ad blockers are proof that people don't want to watch the ads. But, as you point out, we do accept the free content. The thing is the world would likely be better if YT would charge everyone for access. Judging from video quality these days a lot of YTers could be doing something more productive than what they're doing now - I mean in an objective sense, better for economic health. But the real reason for these $0 tech services is to stifle competition and prevent the market from working. And that works to everyone's detriment. Basic economics doesn't function without prices.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

I'm not generating revenue for a lot of companies who are in the advertising business. That's not the definition of piracy. Find another word.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

I agree with this. There was no meeting of the minds, no contract. But, the terms in the Google account probably include something about the terms for viewing youtube videos.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

No, piracy is defined as stealing a vendor's exclusivity by making copies and putting them up on a web site. Ad blocking is not the same as making copies and distributing.

You might as well argue that covering your ears during a TV advertisement is piracy. That's a strange definition of the word if I ever saw one.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

Judging by the response to the parent come back, evidently TSMC deserves the high prices it will be charging. Why?

It's unrealistic to expect just anyone to start up a new fab. But if not one person among billions will start up a new fab it points to intrinsic difficulty or unpleasantness or lack of prestige in the task. A correctively high price has all kinds of advantages for the society.

I haven't seen any argument that difficult tasks shouldn't be priced high. Only name calling.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

The story at the beginning proves that choosing your VP is significantly more important than choosing a PL.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

> I was daunted by making the jump to C, then c++ and python. Only over time did I overcome the nerves and move on with Java, [...]

It sounds as if you did skip C++ and moved to Java instead. If so you serendipedously avoided the one language that's likely to cause problems. C++ doesn't work like the rest of the languages on your list, and it really is as full of land mines as people say - even though, with a good process, evidently it can be managed.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

Let the team choose the language they're most familiar with or most happy with. Then if they choose the wrong one, get a different team.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

> A new language / style / technology / whatever very often will leave us less competent.

This may be a big factor in rejecting unfamiliar languages. Over time the brain trains itself to grok a specific syntax, and understanding becomes partly automatic: we look at a Java program and our brain injects meaning into our consciousness. If we then look at APL or Lisp, however, that training on Java doesn't apply and the automatic injection doesn't function. We're left having to read the symbols directly, and it's unsettling not having the auto-assist. It makes us feel we "can't" understand the language, when it would likely take a couple weeks of immersion to change that impression.

tailrecursion

8 ay öncediscuss

I too appreciate detail-free programs, and I wonder at the value of including all the typedecls and pointer markings, and lifetime markings, and mutability markings interleaved with the logic. Some people I guess believe that the details are "part of the program" and they aid understanding. Do you buy that?

I find that sometimes typedecls aid understanding, but they get in the way if they're the least bit complicated. I'm better off reading the program. I never had problems understanding Lisp programs for some reason.

tailrecursion

9 ay öncediscuss

> [...] show people posts from the people they follow or that the people they follow liked.

Yes, this is a good system. It'll work particularly well at filtering spam because people largely agree what it is. One thing that will happen with your system is people will separate into cliques. But that's not the end of the world. Has anyone implemented Anthony's idea of using followees' likes to rank posts?

tailrecursion

9 ay öncediscuss

Yes the symbols in a way are the letters of APL, and the phrases are the words.

tailrecursion

9 ay öncediscuss

I never did any real programming in APL, but I studied it over about 2 months. When you get used to the symbols, reading spelled-out words feels like reading in slow motion, or being stuck in molasses.

Most (not all) APL code I've seen uses very short names, often one letter names, for function names. And APL programmers are famous for cataloging "idiom" which are short phrases for common subroutines. In other words, it's best practice to repeat 3- or 4- symbol phrases instead of defining a subroutine.

Of course, there's nothing about an array language that requires using symbols; but for some reason most do.

comments