I used to think electrons flow through circuits, then I learned they actually move extremely slowly, so when you flip a switch there is no way an electron made it all the way to the lamp and back. So now I assume the energy of an electron is transferred to the rest through the electromagnetic field in the circuit or something like that? Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea how any of this works and what is true and what is false anymore. It's not really relevant to computers and yet it's all very fascinating.
I did take a look at that, which is probably more than most people would have done, and by take a look I mean a skimmed for images because I'm not reading 2000 words of text for an app I don't even use yet. The only images I found showed how drag and drop works.
I know this is common with projects that think Github is a replacement for a website, but I genuinely wonder how does it get so bad that a 5 year project with 9000 commits and 60 contributors doesn't have a single screenshot. Nothing personal or particular about this project specifically, just... the whole open source culture of dropping something on Github and not even doing the bare minimum to have other people get to know the project.
It feels like such a waste. It could be an amazing project but who is going to bother with it if they can't see what it looks like?
It's impossible to take seriously the argument that copyright is broken because people can't play 1 famous game for free. At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game...
I’d argue it’s broken since the Ordinary Sausage guy was getting DMCA content claims on his YouTube videos where he himself sings parodies of well known songs with sausage themed lyrics in clear, blatant, obvious fair use.
Whenever DMCA let the C evolve into needs to be wiped cleaned and reset/rethought.
> At least say you want to pay Nintendo to play the game...
They possibly did this 30 years ago but now they can’t play the game - despite the license they purchased - because they are missing the original hardware. For the same reason I would never pay Nintendo (again) to get permission (again) to play Pokemon Red: it doesn’t matter to me (and it never will) that I’m somehow “infringing” because I want to enjoy culture that I grew up on. It just makes copyright law a joke that people will reasonably ignore until it is less farcical. Oh no, boo hoo, they make a little bit less money; I’m over here playing (not a beloved game from my childhood, but) the world’s smallest violin in solidarity for the profits of the largest media conglomerate in the world.
Not trying to attack the above commenter but god damn am I sick of hearing how I should be paying money again to enjoy something I “““owned””” in my childhood. Fuck that every day of the week. I do not want to pay Nintendo to play Pokemon Red, I never will, and that is reasonable even if I choose to play it.
While this is true and a big part of it, we can't deny there's a lot of people right now who would like to play currently active Mario and Zelda games for free. Because they're cheap, or they hate Nintendo, but not enough to not play their games.
Nintendo, believe it or not, needs to make money. No money = no mario. And I like mario. And the seven seas likes mario, too. So that's not good for anyone.
There's a middle ground here, but in terms of messaging such middle ground is severely lacking.
Yes, I agree and appreciate the added nuance which I clearly was not in the mood for with my initial comment. I would not say the same thing about Pokemon Scarlet today, though I probably will be in 30 years. ;)
Another important point about old games is their file size. When games are under 1 megabyte, you can literally cram thousands of games in a thumb drive and forget about it. It makes them resilient. Someone probably has a copy of the abandonware not because it looked worth preserving but because it was extremely cheap to preserve. By contrast, if your game is several gigabytes, that's several orders of magnitude more expensive to preserve and distribute.
In my opinion the web is in dire need of a system of proof of humanity. This, together with a mixed system, could solve this sort of problem.
For example, there could be an API for e-mail providers to tell services that an address belongs to a human. The provider would need to implement methods to verify the user's humanity, so you wouldn't need to give every online service your personal info, only your humanity provider that vouches for you. Something like SSL certificate hierarchies could be used to ensure that smaller providers aren't vouching for bots, i.e. you have a root CA that signs their certificates, and if it's found that they don't actually do what they are supposed to do, the certificate isn't renewed. This added with some actual costs to get those certificates would give them an incentive not to lie.
I know some people complain about this not being "private," but let's be real. If you purchase anything from any online website, they have your home address, your phone number, your real name as printed on your credit card, and there is a non-zero chance that some moron stored your credit card number in plain text in a MySQL database. It's always going to be safer to trust PayPal than some random website with this information. Why not do the same with human identity?
Finally, if you can't sign up with any humanity provider for some reason, just make the process extremely annoying and limited. For example, if you have 100 tickets to sell, reserve 90 for people that can prove they are human and leave only 10 for potential bots, then implement a lengthy process for those users so that's not worth it for the bots. If 90% of the tickets are already purchased by people, it will be less profitable for scrapers already.
I still don't know who uses this semantic web. Like you have all these semantics marked up... for whom? What are actual applications using this?
Google has a small subset of schema.org it supports, but rather than "semantic web" it feels more like "here's my API." Its own schema tester often complains about things that should be valid schemas, simply because it doesn't conform to its API. How would any web developer mark up (and test the validity of said mark up) for applications that don't even exist?
