drmoose

joined 2 years ago
[–] drmoose 1 points 3 months ago

patents and copyright are pretty different though. IMO both are bad but you can at least make a case for protecting intelectual work from copying. Patents protect replication of ideas and ideas don't have to be unique at all. If I say it was my idea to call variables a,b,c,d,e in that order that means anyone who wants to do that in their creations needs my permission which is fucking bonkers.

I'm convinced that software patents exist purely for regulatory capture.

[–] drmoose -1 points 3 months ago

This is crazy that we tolerate such a breach of social trust.

[–] drmoose 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

it's stupid. I'm convinced that people who oversee software patents don't even know what's a computer.

[–] drmoose 22 points 3 months ago (3 children)

even worse. software patents are just more idiotic copyrights.

[–] drmoose 0 points 3 months ago

Ah I missed this part of the article:

Yet within 24 hours, parliament tabled an emergency motion to reverse these changes - a move which has sparked widespread condemnation and fears of a constitutional crisis.

This does make sense now. It's just a very poorly written article :|

[–] drmoose 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't see how removing the 20% requirement could mean this. Wouldn't that be the opposite? Less restrictions meaning more competition?

[–] drmoose 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

On Wednesday, Indonesia's top court ruled that parties would not need a minimum 20% of representation in their regional assemblies in order to field a candidate.

...

If passed, it would maintain the status quo, which favours parties in the ruling coalition of the outgoing president

How?

[–] drmoose 3 points 4 months ago

no uh, you wouldn't be happy to drive a Russian vehicle unless you like awful rides and literally death. There are no airbags or any modern safety features other than the seatbelt lol

[–] drmoose 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can someone spread around some guides on how to apply an everything. The crocodile tears would be incredible!

[–] drmoose 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I find the whole thing so ugly even as a youtube plus subscriber. How much possibly you could gain here? isn't youtube already profitable and being run by one of the world's richest corporations? just let people watch and educate themselves and whatnot.

[–] drmoose 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

But lack of ability does not prevent any of that. Entrepreneurs who want to monetize stuff will find a way to spam and game the system.

As someone whos responsible for docs and public facing material I'd never push text only content these days. There's just way too much UX value left out with this limitation. Sometimes more is more.

Additionally I'd argue that people who only want text are have advantage in the current system as you can strip and reformat everything on the front end and nobody will ever know or bully you into accepting their system. Just like nobody cared about ad blockers before they were widely adopted.

[–] drmoose 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I heavily disagree with this. Stepping back to "walls of text with hyperlinks" is a bad idea that'll service no one and will never succeed in any reasonable capacity.

Current web technology is not what caused bad web. The exception would be too powerful js where js should only provide interactivity and extra flavor to the page rather than run a full application which can fingerprint and punish user agents.

Javascript, embeded images and audio are awesome things that can improve content readability a thousand fold. Just look at best docs on the web - all of them use these features to tend their users. Even wikipedia added js flavoring like hover pop ups. Because it works.

view more: ‹ prev next ›