have_humility's comments

Fun fact: DirecTV HD DVR's contain GPL code. (Maybe Linux, but I can't remember, really.) It was amusing coming across the phrase "Ty Coon, President of Vice" in my parent's printed owner's manual a couple years ago.

Not so fun fact: When I saw that, I checked online to see what sources DirecTV is offering, and I came across claims that DirecTV is yet another corporation shirking their responsibility wrt their use of GPL code.

Try going with whole chicken and separating the pieces yourself. You can even throw it into a slow cooker completely frozen if you're lazy. The downside is the time it takes to do the separation, but I've found that in aggregate it's actually a marked convenience, even compared to buying already separated chicken breasts. 1 whole chicken = 8 meals for me, and prepping it only takes about half an hour.

Last year I essentially switched to chicken as my only meat source for meals eaten at home, mostly by default. I sort of ditched that around Christmas after becoming bored of it, but I've found that after doing 1 hour of prep time (half an hour for chicken, half an hour for packing salads) twice a week with the whole chicken approach, it's hard to go back spending 1-2 hours a day in the kitchen, 5-7 days a week--which is a routine I managed for years up until then.

The BBC Horizons documentary I mentioned above also looked into mussels as a source of meat. I don't recall pollution being mentioned as an issue, but it gave other reasons why even optimistic outlooks could only consider them a partial replacement, given the numbers we have for meat consumption today (not to mention decades from now).

I'm not going to rewatch it, but the facility they visited used uncaged chickens housed in a barn. If you're making a point about the ethics of it, note that even the concepts of "intensive farming" and "humane treatment of animals" aren't mutually exclusive.

> The problem being everyone has had a runoff with the small proportion of non-civilized advocates

Everyone, apparently, except for me. Yet despite the dearth of obnoxious advocates, I have run into dozens or more who complain about their existence.

I think the obnoxious advocate trope is just a trope, and I'm convinced the the vast majority of complainers are complaining about the idea of a reification of the trope or something they've seen on television, rather than any actual live instances of the trope they've had run-ins with.

I don't know what a sanitizing chicken is, and apparently neither does Google. I assume from context it means chickens bred to lay eggs?

A BBC Horizons documentary with subtitle "How to Feed the Planet" (popsci--I'm aware) was posted to reddit a few months ago. The conclusion, IIRC, suggested that even the best hacks in beef farming don't hold a candle when compared to approaches that lean more heavily towards transitioning away from beef to other types of meat, especially chicken.

What are the numbers on the chart in the linked page supposed to mean? Average meat consumption per capita per year, organized by country? And the bigger question: how do this kinds of charts keep getting made, and how do articles that otherwise make no hint at their own charts' existence keep being published?

I've noticed the Moto G can typically go 36-48 hours (or more?) without a charge (depending on how light your use is).

Sometimes I come in and crash without putting it on the charger and realize what I've done the next morning. When that happens, I don't have to worry about immediately charging it even then; usually it still can make it to the end of that day (business hours) without being on a charger. This happens around once a week or so, maybe more sometimes.

I'm on my second Moto G, and this has been true for both, so it's not a one-off thing.

> Solo disponible en la Unión Europea

What happens if you quote a large figure and they take you up on it, despite the fact that you never intended to honor the offer? Congratulations, now you're a jerk.

When I wrote it, I had originally written "optimal" as "efficient", but "optimal" has multiple meanings here.

The point is, if you would arrive at a requirement of $x to implement the thing in an exercise where you decide to entertain all requests as a request for a legitimate bid, then don't quote an arbitrary figure of $y. Quoting $x works out the best for everyone in all possible cases, where the approach to quote an arbitrary figure falls down in more than one place.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313659

Weird use of quotes here, considering I used the word "deserve" nowhere. But on that note, I think every person does deserve to be not automatically lied to because of cynicism. See my comment about treating the best with the worst and the multiple times I point out the diminished-enthusiasm-for-a-humanity-filled-with-humans-that-don't-see-the-humanity-of-other-humans feeling.

"No, leave me alone" is much a better response than, "Sure, I'll think about that!" when the latter isn't true, the recipient would've been okay with the former, and hasn't given reason for you to believe otherwise.

Note also that I didn't bring up the comfort of the requestor; I mentioned it only because iaw specifically brought it up and said that lying would comfort them...

I wouldn't have written my comment at all if iaw had said, "The end is the same result, but it's more comfortable for the developer, and it gets the requestor to fuck off." But that's not what (s)he wrote.

Let's assume that this is a valid characterization of things. Now, we could try flipping one or more of those bits. Surely the soundness of this argument guarantees that the resulting bit sequences are not protected so long as nobody else ever arranged those bits that way, and we're free to use them, right? In fact, we would be the only ones allowed to use the resulting bit sequence then.

Problem is, if we actually did this, the protection status of those bits in real life would not comport with the results we outlined above. Specifically, we would find that many of the resulting bit sequences would be just as off limits to us. That's because copyright is not about bits, and the original characterization that it is is not a sound one.

http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

The only way to attempt to invalidate nfoz's words there in the way that you want to results in begging the question.

I disagree that nfoz's suggestion is a good one. (See tptacek's followup to lultimouomo[1]). But it doesn't mean the question is invalid. (See lultimouomo's initial reply to tptacek[2]).

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313558 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9313549

And the optimal way to do it? Just quote the actual figure that it would cost them for you to agree to it.

> The end is the same result (no feature) but with a bit more comfort for both parties.

I don't think this is true.

Same result? Agreed. More comfortable for the developer? Okay, sure (if being dishonest/disingenuous is no discomfort). More comfortable for the requestor? It depends on the person. I would loathe this, for example, and it would evoke in me a far worse feeling than a flat out "no" would; these kinds of responses abound in plenty of other areas of life, and they're very much one of those things that contributes that kind-of-kills-me-a-little-on-the-inside feeling. I suspect that I'm not alone.

But then, I'm not the kind of person who's going to be harrassing anyone over feature requests. I also suspect, though, that the inference that lots of the intended targets will be placated by this kind of response is probably overstated.

EDIT:

To give an example, an acquaintance of mine listed a room for rent last year. He got about, I dunno, a little over a dozen responses of varying quality; some were from people who essentially put in the least effort possible, while others had both indicated that the author had actually put some thought into considering whether it would be a good match and provided relevant info about themselves for review. His response to almost all of them? To treat the best of them with the worst; they got no response. The result as I'm gazing over his inbox? That slightly-less-optimistic-about-humanity feeling.

Have you done this? If so, what JRE are you using for Minecraft? I know that trying to run Android Studio with the OpenJDK JRE on hardware with a similar clock speed, is pret-ty slow even when that hardware is x86. I can't imagine what it would be like on ARM.

Not to mention that "first-world country where ubiquitous internet access via wifi hotspots has been implemented" doesn't particularly describe, say, the US very well. The picture painted to try to make these contrasts tends to itself stand in contrast to the picture that is real life.

Not that the over-arching sentiment of "you shouldn't take the existence of an always-available network connection for granted" is a bad one. It's just that saying, basically, "These devices aren't suitable everywhere; consider market segments that may be less mature than the big, contemporary Western one you're most familiar with, for example" is a little bit of a weird and not terribly convincing way to express it.

This is not a particularly insightful comment.

The implicit context for the comment you're replying to, made explicit, is clearly "Consumers have spoken, they do not care [about whether their devices have a 'real' OS or not]." Given that this is the case, your rebuttal is a fairly empty one. It's essentially in the same realm as tautological-ish, no-impact statements, as far its role in this discussion goes...

Lots of Mozilla stuff:

http://www.jwz.org (gruntle, doc, hacks, blog; everything)

http://www.mozillamemory.org

http://www.codersatwork.com