Don't lobby. go to your local caucus and change it from within. Note that I said Caucus: even in a primary state there is some form of caucus where the party decides things. You want to be in this system, this is where the party platform is decided on. This is where the people who are working behind the scene to elect someone make the plans. In turn this is where politicians go to find people who will work for them. Which in turn means this is where you can have a one-on-one meeting from the standpoint of someone important to listen to. (when you spend a few Saturdays knocking on potential voters doors for someone that someone listens to you)
If both parties get anti-DRM legislation into the platform in random places you can be assured they will listen. If both parties see their big supporters as against something they will listen. Politicians do not want money, contrary to what you might think: they want a power, and in this country that means they need votes. Money (for ads) is one way to get votes, but real humans doing real work is at least as powerful.
This sounds hopelessly naive. At the risk of starting a political flamewar, it’s really not possible for any individual to effect large scale change to policymaking beyond the hyper local level. It’s especially impossible to go against massive lobbying interests like the RIAA.
If someone wants to do that bit I'd say go ahead. Don't tell people not to pursue lobbying though.
After the last four years I have now blocked all social media and all american news sources in my house with the expressed intent of not hearing a word about politics, news, etc... It has taken a massive toll on how I feel day to day, I found my personal relationships waning, and made me feel uncomfortable meeting new people. I'd rather pay someone to involve themselves with this kind of world, not be involved in it myself.
I believe United States v. Eichman invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 700 -- which is the Flag Protection Act.
The "Flag Code" normally refers to 4 U.S.C. § 1 -- which I don't think ever had any penalties for violation. It's simply advisory. The purpose is primarily to define the way the flag is used in an official capacity.
Maybe because the choice I make as a consumer isn't between going to Hawaii by flight or by car -- it's whether to make a plane journey to Hawaii or a car journey upstate.
So maybe per total hour from door to door is the relevant metric: you tend to make decisions based on comparable travel times, whatever the reason for travel or mode eventually selected.
Others have commented that many of these are general shell or terminal quoting problems.
Something that stood out for me is that the author did not mention ^V, which is very useful in quoting metacharacters. Take the tab example: The author seems to imply that PCRE is needed to match a tab because there is no \t escape sequence in BRE/ERE. Presumably he cannot just type in a tab because he's using a shell like bash, and tab has a special interpretation and cannot be typed in as a string literal.
The way around this is to use ^V as a terminal escape sequence, followed by simply pressing the tab key. This technique can be used to insert other control characters as string literals in arguments. Want to grep for EOF? "grep ^V^D" will get you there.
Yep. Allows for some seriously cool programmatic editing:
g/^abc/norm ^3wciwHello^V^]2ei!
Any line starting with abc, replace the 3rd word with hello, and append an exclamation mark to the end of the 5th word. ^] is the control char for escape.
The answer to #4 is probably that the goal isn't to always have ice cream. The goal is to run a profitable business.
Doubling the cost of the ice cream infrastructure to avoid a 25% downtime may not be a profitable venture -- especially if the downtime is scheduled to occur while the store is closed.
Yes, the overhead is per-syscall. The number of read() syscalls shrinks as the per-call buffer grows.
With mmap() of course we only ever have one syscall to create the initial mapping. Everything else is a memory read.
We can get read() down to just one syscall too, with a 4G buffer ;) I can't recall if GB sized buffers are possible, but I have certainly used MB sized read buffers for exactly this reason.
On Linux, read() (and similar system calls) will transfer at most 0x7ffff000
(2,147,479,552) bytes, returning the number of bytes actually transferred.
(This is true on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems.)
Yes, of course. What I mean to say is that it's weird the author did not see that trend and test it. There wouldn't have been an article if the result was "mmap is faster than read using buffer size < 64kb". It seems kind of central to their whole thesis.
Here's the catch: Large buffer sizes only increase efficiency for sequential reads. mmap() is still much faster for random access within a file. Doubly so, because we need to not just read() but also lseek() for every read.
The inefficiencies of read() can be minimized in the sequential case only.
> Do I have access to all the features of a regular Zoom meeting?
> Not right now. Enabling this version of Zoom’s E2EE in your meetings disables certain features, including join before host, cloud recording, streaming, live transcription, Breakout Rooms, polling, 1:1 private chat, and meeting reactions.
Some of those features they can bring back, some they might not be able to.
I don't think the person you're replying to is being dishonest. You've simply listed reasons as to why this content isn't acceptable. Of course there are often reasons why content and beliefs might be rejected by mainstream thought -- "it's a pack of lies" is chief among them.
There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example.
Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.
I don't understand how this isn't also similar to messaging abusive language or similar is technically "diversity in mainstream thought" (as in people can and will be abusive in some populations) and also should be totally barred (such as child neglect).
Well, we generally do not prohibit abusive speech.
What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant.
The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture.
The car's width is absolutely its interface with respect to roadway interoperability.
We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not involve UX. We are talking about interfaces between functional components. The analogy is spot on.
The interoperability width is already set by the road... you're copying the road at that point, not the car.
The lawsuit involves UX for a software framework. Which its API constitutes. The user happens to be a developer here and their usage is software development.
And this is why Google had to copy the interface -- otherwise their runtime would not operate with other existing products. As you can see given your example, the analogy is a perfect fit.
Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.
What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments?
None of those things would work.
Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.
> What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments?
Your question is exactly my point. I'm suggesting what I said earlier:
