Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | foobar1726's commentslogin

An incredible number of words spent while missing the point completely.

Labubu is a child substitute. It's a caricature of a mischievous young toddler.

Historically, most people in their mid 20s would have already had at least one child. As parenthood gets pushed further back, people struggle to fill that biological yearning.

Scroll through the photos and mentally substituite a child for the doll and it will all make sense. Labubu on a keychain? The toddler is with you everywhere you go. Taking your kid to work. Dressing them up for a wedding. Taking fun selifes, visiting the gym, etc etc.

No need to pull in COVID19 or the Baudrillard wankery.


Reputable reporters know that publishing those stories leads to break-in burglaries where everyone is killed and nothing is stolen.


Or with hands tied and two gunshot wounds to the back of the head and its ruled a suicide (Gary Webb)


Or crawled into a suitcase and zipped it up = suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams


> A subsequent Metropolitan Police re-investigation concluded that Williams's death was "probably an accident"

My sides


You should check out this thing called open source software


You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws.

Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain?


You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft


Even if companies didn't have copyright protection on their source code, that doesn't mean they'd post it all on the internet for anybody to freely download.


No, not all of them, but some companies, many organizations, and plenty of individuals would.

Not everything has to be done for a profit. Plenty of us make software, art, and technology because we find it fun and interesting to work on, and because we want to live in a world that is richer for it.

Removing draconian intellectual property laws that mostly only benefit the giant corporations that lobbied for them isn't going to stop me from doing so, and I doubt it would stop many others.


Ok, but copyright law already doesn't stop anyone from putting things into the public domain.


No, but it does give them an incentive not to.


You probably mean you want to take free advantage of what others create, and you offer nothing in return.

But maybe you will pleasantly surprise us and show what kind of valuable thing you create and offer for free.


I only mean what I said. Anything else you infer is your own bias.

I don't know why you are taking such a hostile position towards someone you have never interacted with, but you are welcome to believe what you will. I don't feel any need to prove or justify my actions to Internet strangers. I've participated in the FL/OSS software movement long enough that I still put the FL/ in front of the name.

I don't sell my thoughts, they are freely given. If everyone behaved this way, there would be no need for copyright (or copyleft). I choose to engage the world in the way I wish it to be.


You are not a developer so you don't understand you can compile to a binary without revealing your sources?

No copyright -> No GPL -> anyone can release their own close source version of open source software.

Why do you think GPL was create in the first place? We always had public domain you know.


My compilers work just fine? Perhaps I'm not sure what your point is.


My point is that you are unable to understand the difference between GPL and public domain.


Okay.


A key component of the GPL is the requirement that source of code of programs that use the GPL code be made available. Without IP laws, how would you achieve that goal of the GPL?


I mostly addressed this in a sibling comment, but I wanted to add that if copyright wasn't preventing companies from copying and building upon the works of others, I find it likely that the industry would be more free and competitive.

Source code is a recipe. You can't copyright recipes by themselves, but that hasn't caused any sort of chilling effect in the food and hospitality industries.

I agree with you that removing copyright protections breaks the GPL. What I think most responses to my comment miss is that we wouldnt NEED the GPL without copyright. Copyleft only exists so that copyright cannot be used by companies against users.

I know Stallman isnt the most popular on this forum, but history has sorta proven he was right, time after time.


Does this matter anymore when everything can be reverse engineered?


> You should check out this thing called open source software

Open source actually demonstrates that copyright serves a purpose. There are still customers for non-open software, even when open alternatives exist, so the ability to monetize brings new offerings to the economy.


Open source software is unique in that it takes little to no capital investment to create. People post free art too. It doesn't mean that Game of Thrones didn't cost anything to produce.


Writing books and creating music also takes no capital investment


And people do do those things out of passion, and many of them are happy to share it so you can listen to it for free. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control what happens to what they made.


Sure, but you said that open source software is unique because it doesn't take capital. It isn't unique, as demonstrated by the two other examples (out of many) that I posted.

Whether someone should own the right to control is a separate issue. Your previous response made it seem like the lack of capital requirement was the distinction, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You argued that if you didn't own the copyright, there would be no incentive for creating and sharing work. Someone said that open source software shows that you can have creative work without needing to maintain ownership. You then said that was only applicable to software.

It clearly isn't, because of my examples.


Unfortunately, you're fighting an endless battle.

Copyright maximalists always move the goalposts when you pin them down.


> That doesn't mean that they shouldn't own the right to control

What value system grants the right to control what you make?

Outside human culture, where does nature exhibit this value?


"We had all of our workers set up in an open office layout to to make sure everyone could talk to each other without a single point of failure. But last night the boss got too drunk and didn't come in, so everyone spent the day scrolling tiktok."


Incredible that tooltips were killed because braindead """designers""" couldn't figure out how to make them work on mobile.

They'll be reintroduced under a new name in a decade or two with endless self-congratulation. Same as physical car controls.

Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.


I'm fairly certain that exact thing existed on Windows XP and earlier. It was a question mark in the top right of the window, added a "?" next to your cursor. You could then click elements to see if there happened to be an explanation embedded in the program for that particular button/box/whatever. Didn't always work, but was useful when it was needed.


> Here's a solution off the top of my head: have a dedicate "info" button at the OS level. Holding the button disables normal interaction, highlights all inspectable elements, and allows you to click on each one for a description. Like "inspect element" in the browser.

This is a really cool idea. Agreed! Wish something like this actually existed.


Wait, isn't that what Windows 3.1/95 did with the "What's this" button?


In the future they'll track your eyes and when you've been staring blankly for a second at something, it'll pop up a tooltip that you'll have to dismiss.


It seems like the C++98 example is the best by far? Keeps all error information while remaining concise and easy to understand. Not to mention 50 times faster. (Could be improved by adding some simple type aliases like BirthYear that explicitly start from 1900.)

IMO the main takeaway is that malformed input is not an exceptional state when parsing, and should be treated as a first class citizen. Everything else is yak shaving how you want to handle the (status, validObject) tuple coming from the parser.


The compile time is 50 times faster, not the runtime.


C++ added auto 14 years ago. Swift had it since day 1 back in 2014 if I remember right. What else is there?


C, Ada, Fortran, Pascal.


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

Search: