I would be much more inclined to continue voting for a politician who could explain their policy position as it changes in an open and sensible way. Politicians putting on a speech that sounds truthful and honest and like a discussion is happening between adults is so rare - it seems that very few people want that. I do though.
This is an English thing and I don't really get it, despite being English originally. Our English neighbour imported their Land Rover when they moved here from the UK, all the way to NZ. As far as I can tell their appeal is just for talking about it in-between trips to the mechanic, which is where they'll spend a lot of their time. Said neighbour's one is currently unroadworthy. They're ugly (subjective), inefficient, rattly, unreliable, not super fun to drive. I could understand if it was a nationalistic thing, but LR is owned by Tata motors.
I've built my own sync engine in rust to run against supabase. It doesn't run the browser though, it's for a native app (tauri in my case). It's column level lww.
I have one place where I'm thinking I might need a crdt due to the complexity of the data and how you collaborate with it.
People take my app offline for long periods of time then reconnect with 1000s of records to sync so my sync is backgrounded and built to deal with several mb of data in sqlite files.
Anyway I'm interested in taking a further look at your thing over the holidays to see if it's worth switching or making partial use of it.
The BYD cars are starting to look quite nice too. I saw one the other day that must have been a Seal and thought "that's a cool looking car what is it? huh a BYD"
> You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business
You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not.
It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract.
Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract.
A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance"
I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.
If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, trespassed if you refuse, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone.
Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.
It's not piracy. You might have a problem with it ethically. But you're not breaking copyright laws by blocking ads.
Another way to look at it is additive rather than subtractive. If I visit a site with a text only browser that cannot display ads, what is your position then? And if I then implement the ability for my browser to play only the main video on any page, what then?
When it comes down to it, we have no obligation to view the content on a webpage the way the publisher of said webpage wants us to. You can think of plenty of other examples that make "adblocking is piracy" ridiculous - I invert the colors but the publisher doesn't want me to see it with inverted colors. I wear sunglasses while looking at it, which changes the way it looks. Maybe the site I use always puts an ad in the same place so I stick a bit of tape on my monitor in that location, is that bad?
Software doesn't operate in some magical realm outside of the physical world. It very much is constrained by real world limitations. It runs on the hardware that itself is limited. I wonder if some failures are a result of thinking it doesn't have these limitations?
As the great Joe Armstrong used to say, “a lot of systems actually break the laws of physics”[1] — don’t program against the laws of physics.
> In distributed systems there is no real shared state (imagine one machine in the USA another in Sweden) where is the shared state? In the middle of the Atlantic? - shared state breaks laws of physics. State changes are propagated at the speed of light - we always know how things were at a remote site not how they are now. What we know is what they last told us. If you make a software abstraction that ignores this fact you’ll be in trouble.[2]
> It very much is constrained by real world limitations. It runs on the hardware that itself is limited
And yet we scale the shit out of it, shifting limitations further and further. On that scale different problems emerge and there is no single person or even single team that could comprehend this complexity in isolation. You start to encounter problems that have never been solved before.
You can scale it within the bounds of the physical hardware it is running on. And as you scale it you start running into all the problems brought about by distributed systems, problems which very much stem from physics.
Except that it kind of does. I can horizontally scale a distributed storage system until we run out of silicon. I cannot do the same with a cargo airplane.
I'm puzzled by your reply because it starts out by refuting that software is constrained by physics "Except it kind of does" and then immediately gives an example of it being constrained by physics "until we run out of silicon".
You can horizontally scale cargo transport by running more cargo planes until you're constrained in some way.
The problem with that is that it would require a huge amount of coordination for it to be by design. I think it's better to look on it as systemic. Which isn't to say there aren't malign forces contributing.
I agree. Perhaps, "by design" is not the correct phrasing. Many decisions and effects go through a multi weighted graph of complexity (sort of like machine learning).
It was more tech companies in collusion than many people realize.
1) Apple and Google, (2) Apple and Adobe, (3) Apple and Pixar, (4) Google and Intel, (5) Google and Intuit, and (6) Lucasfilm and Pixar.
It was settled out of court. One of the plaintiffs was very vocal that the settlement was a travesty of justice. The companies paid less in the settlement than the amount they saved by colluding to keep wages down.
reply