HumanHater's comments

I do believe that it would be norm in near future. You can store photo and video for some time (for legal purposes mostly) but after that you would need to either obtain consent of everyone on them, remove the photo or edit it (replace real people with computer generated ones). The tech for the latter is basically already here.

> The Karatsuba algorithm is a fast multiplication algorithm. It was discovered by Anatoly Karatsuba in 1960 and published in 1962.

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

Humans wants religion, humans need religion, a lot of humans can't survive without religion. All those reports about religion decline in the world look misleading. It is just Christian God fell out of favor and a lot of people choose to worship Holy Technological Progress. You can easily recognize worshipers of his two main sects in threads like this.

First one claims that you don't need to worry about Climate Change, Super AI, Antibiotic Resistance Pathogens etc because Holy Progress would protect humanity from any threat. It is benevolent God who didn't let us down this far.

Second one claims that sacrificing yourself, your loved ones and the rest of humanity on the altar of Holy Progress is actually worthy goal. Because that is what they believe their God wants.

As a person who chooses Mint MATE everywhere I have that option: no, I don't have this bullshit complaints. The whole point of OS is to let user start his favorite programs and get out of the way. That is what MATE get right and most other systems get wrong.

I also don't see any real problems with icons or fonts or anything but maybe it's just because I adapted to them. Without hardware problems overall experience with MATE is far superior than with Windows or Mac OS.

The screenshot above was Linux Mint 17 MATE, your screenshot is for Cinnamon. New MATE almost didn't change.

https://www.linuxmint.com/pictures/screenshots/tara/mate.png

> The Open Source Definition says nothing about [very long list]

There is nothing in your list that is different for open-source and proprietary software development. You could as well add countless articles about OOP and functional programming because they mention some open-source tools.

OSD is about answering three simple questions. Should I use some program or library? Should I contribute to its development? Should I release my new program or lib as open-source? OSD makes process of choosing the answer fairly simple and helps developer avoiding all weird legal stuff. He doesn't need to know OSD and read full texts of licenses as long as he uses most adopted like MTI, BSD, GPL. Descriptions of pros and cons of every one of them in layman terms are available on the internet. It's hard to say the same for the ill-conceived licenses you mentioned.

I can't sell some project based on Lerna to [list of companies] ? OK. How am I supposed to check that the company didn't change name? What if I am selling my work to subcontractor? I would probably have to include this list in every contract. What if every open-source project started banning some arbitrary list of companies? Am I supposed to review the last commit to license every time to make sure that my company wasn't included? All that looks, sounds and smells like a lot of headache and any reasonable person would drop the project with first sign of it.

Commons Clause was even worse. It was advertised as "MTI+CC", but nobody would be able to figure out what "CC" part meant for them without a lawyer. And any lawyer would advise to find something else.

> Most times I bring [Open Source Definition] up, my conversation partner has never heard of it.

That really doesn't matter. All they know about open source is based on this definition. There millions of articles about open source on the internet that use it. You are trying to invalidate all of them for no good reason. As a consequence every opinion about open source they ever read prior to your efforts would be outdated. Most people understand danger of these actions which leads to behavior you described as "bullying".

Thank you! Amount of insane comments here is deeply disturbing.

Deceased person could have "secret" lover whom he was going to marry. He could have secret son who had more right to decide what to do with the page than anyone else.

He wasn't married to person who harassed Facebook. He could have relations with dozen other women all of whom asked fb to erase all history of it including messages and photos. Grieving person might try to demand restoring profile and giving her access to it so she could identify them and make their life living hell. Yes this might sound farfetched and a little bit insane but stories like this really happen all over the globe thousands time a day.

Its easy to agree with fb here especially because "widow" couldn't possibly do anything good with requested information.

Did ever look how spam filtering or search results ranking algorithms work? They work exactly because companies keep their policies secret. Transparent policies would get abused instantly.

Facebook processes might change every month to react on actions of billion users. What good disclosing it could ever make? You could see examples of abuse of Facebook policy in other comments here.

Can this "Autopilot" control altitude of the vehicle? No. Therefor it's not the same thing, it is just something similar.

What should we call car autopilot? There is more than one opinion. Some people believe in importance of some weird technical characteristics. For most people defining property of autopilot is its ability to control vehicle while pilot left the cockpit for a few minutes. So to them car autopilot must safely drive some roads and require human to take full control on the others. Taking over in case of emergency doesn't exactly fit this idea.

What looks really weird in all this discussions is their fanatical uselessness. Who would be hurt if new law would prohibit to call autopilot anything less than L5? Well probably no one. Who would benefit? Most likely a lot of people. Why would anyone oppose regulation like this? Huge question.

Well all these species probably has role in horizontal gene transfer. They also help keeping animal population from growing too big. However it is very unlikely that any of this factors has any global effect. Some areas of the world don't have mosquitoes or ticks, in others they were eradicated with DDT and other chemicals. Observed negative consequences didn't have anything to do with eliminated targets.

It's possible that in some local areas some animals would be severely affected. But even in that case climate change already changing natural balance. For example ticks are almost culling deers. It is better to find new equilibrium while humanity still can have some control over the ecosystem.

... and for bed bugs, and for fleas, and also for basically every insect that feeds on mammal blood. They are important vectors of transmitting a whole lot of diseases, some of which already dangerous to humans while others could easily mutate to become ones. We are already eradicating a lot of species. May as well exterminate bad ones. There are no ethical problems because no sane person feels bad about killing ticks. These species probably don't have any important ecological role (well maybe they speed up evolution a little bit, but in that case screw evolution). And in case anything goes wrong repopulating the whole globe with them would take no time.

Yet another reason to exterminate mosquitoes ASAP. People would continue to use every weapon available to kill them even just because they are annoying. However most chemicals we use today affect basically all insects. So we either eradicate mosquitoes now or continue to watch decline of bee population. I personally would chose bees over mosquitoes any day of the year.

I'm sorry but what is your source of information exactly? "Hate speech" vkontakte is very dangerous in Russia and could put you in prison for a long time. Even upvotes and reposts could lead to very undesirable outcome. On the other hand I never heard of any problems for LGBT communities: despite western propaganda no one really cares about them. It didn't took me long to google them.

Ever heard of bears? I don't believe any of them have something that could be called a tribe (unless you redefine any form of family to be one). They simply don't have a source of food that could sustain any nontrivial population in small territory. Even living alone most of there lives wouldn't stop them from finding a mate and having an offspring.

In that case Facebook should offer user a choice between paying for the service directly or letting advertiser to do that. I doubt that any nontrivial amount of users would choose to pay even $100/year so that wouldn't change anything for Facebook. However it could be enough to comply with weird EU regulation.

There are hundreds of articles for any topic on the internet. Even if 10% of them could survive without ads it would more than enough. The problem is right now there is no way to distinguish between them without visiting them all. And I am not going to open and close 5 websites before I could finally find the one without ads.

Website owners could easily fix that problem by declaring some standard mandatory component of URL for every ad-supported page. I would happily write and use an extension that would erase all links that have e.g. string "/ads/" in them. That way I would never visit there part of the internet and wouldn't harm them in any way. However since they don't want to make this small step towards my needs they are welcome to go to hell.

While smoking marijuana is victimless crime selling it is certainly not. There are a lot of laws one might need to break to successfully sell drugs. Also a lot of convicts financially supported Mexican cartels and bear some responsibility for their crimes.

At the end of the day they new all the risks, chose to play this game to make fast easy money, and they lost. It is like casino where you could win $5M or lose and spend 5 years in prison. Now letting the winners to keep the money but let losers go would not be exactly fair.

> I think it's very telling that the author consistently refers to directories as "folders".

You do understand that the article was written in different language (russian), right? I kinda think this makes your whole argument broken.