That's the problem with writing posts both of the "everyone else is doing things WRONG, those dang fools" (e.g. the series on RSS readers) and "oops, I did a stupid mistake, heh, TIL" styles and variety: the latter ones tend to attract comments from "The One" (oh noes) referencing the first kind of posts. Naturally, a humble person would simply read them, note them, and move on withouth replying — but a humble would person would not write the "everyone else is doing things WRONG, those dang fools" kind of posts either in the first place; and so we get the third kind of posts, the ones with "yeah, I did a small mistake, but I've admitted it myself, so no one else is allowed to criticize me; anyway..." disclaimer on the top.
P.S. I do distictly remember how a reply on HN to one of her earlier posts on RSS clients mentioned that her laments kinda miguided since her own feed doesn't set one very well-documented and basic cache-controlling HTTP header that most readers actually do respect; but some time later in her later post she described that header as matter-of-fact knowlewdge, no "I've learned about this one recently" remark or anything, and by that time, her RSS feed had started setting it.
I don't know, with her RSS saga, she actually provided a tool to test one's RSS feed reader and helped find bugs and this lead to fixes in many RSS tools, making things better for everyone. She put in the work. I find the approach quite constructive.
Well, yes, it did improve that particular area of software. Although for about 15 years that wasn't really problem for anyone who didn't self-host their blog on a potato attached to the Internet with a phone coupler and copper-wires; you can find comments at HN in the relevant discussions from the people who apparently serve about the same amount amount of (almost) static traffic she complains about while it costs them like $2 monthly or something. Now AI crawlers, those are quite a problem...
While I am personally glad that now there are less infuriatingly stupid network clients around (although, again, those never really amounted to all that much load), and probably adopting a rather caustic attitude at the authors of RSS clients was the only to force them to fix things, but even then: you can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a gun. Besides, there is some unspoken etiquette between the content servers and content readers; a server that e.g. bans you for exceeding rate-limits when you open the "Full blog archives" page and middle-click at 10 promisingly named links to read them one after another is just rude, personal opinions of the hoster notwithstanding.
P.S. Seriously, max-age=155520? Your server/ISP can't handle serving a ~190 KiB (when gzipped) file even once a day, it has to be almost 2 days? Get it off the public Internet then.
(I should note that in my crowd, references to this movie are always super-negative. "The One" gets damned to hell to eternally fight, but never win his battle.)
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of these blog posts for what is, at best, a simple bug in Debian. When I encounter something like this, I find steps to reproduce and file a bug. That's it.
If someone wants to get indignant and broadcast how terrible it is that a project (Debian in this case) is so terrible that they dare have a UX issue that is probably just an oversight, then they're entitled to do that but can also expect pushback where they aren't perfect either.
I could imagine a judge holding a contract to resign from office void as contrary to public policy (on the basis of the intuition that elected representatives shouldn't have their continuance in office subject to random contracts with third parties lest this interfere with their service to the public.)
There is obviously a line between what is and is not a permissible search somewhere and it's virtually inevitable that judicial rulings will from time to time err on both sides of that line (and they do). Punishing judges for ruling in ways which are later overturned would destroy rule of law at a fundamental level.
> Punishing judges for ruling in ways which are later overturned would destroy rule of law at a fundamental level.
Not where people's most fundamental rights are concerned. What it would do is cause judges to err on the side of caution before making a ruling that would violate the constitution which is exactly what we want judges to do.
That's obviously unworkable if you consider that even the Supreme Court's interpretation of fundamental rights can change over time. If a future Supreme Court overturns a prior Supreme Court decision in a way that expands a particular right, do we punish all the judges who followed the previous precedent? If we do, then we have a judicial system that encourages individual judges to ignore the Supreme Court, which doesn't seem like a good setup.
But more fundamentally, the system you're proposing doesn't just incentivize judges to err on the side of caution, it incentivizes them to never rule in favor of the government and just punt the decision to the next level. If the cost of ever being overturned on appeal in favor of an individual's rights is losing their job, while there is no corresponding downside of ruling the other way, there's basically no reason to ever risk granting a warrant, for example.
Judges who violate the basic rights of other judges would also be subject to some level of accountability though. At a certain point, we have to trust government officials to at least attempt to do their jobs and we need to have ways to address the situation when they don't. It shouldn't matter if that judge is a democrat or a republican.
Right now there is currently zero accountability. At best, when a judge violates people's constitutional rights some small number of those people will be able to get an unjust ruling overturned at which point they might be released from prison or might get some monetary payout at the expense of taxpayers, but the judge is still free to do whatever they want without consequence knowing that at least a few people will be unable to assert their rights.
Considering that unaccountable judges are where we're starting from, I think having a means to make judges accountable can only improve things. Given the choice between judges being able to violate people's rights without any accountability or a system where judges have some level of accountability for the most egregious violations of our rights, even while that system requires us to make sure that it isn't being clearly abused, I think we're better off with the option to get some accountability where it's needed.
It doesn't need to be a perfect system to be a better one, and it feels like we could put some guardrails in place to keep the amount of obvious abuse down. It's difficult to believe that judges willfully violating people's rights without consequence is an unsolvable problem, let alone one that couldn't possibly be improved somehow.
The Rule of Law is already being broken by a judge saying the law doesn't matter when it is convenient to getting a conviction, meanwhile for normal citizens ignorance of the law is not a defense.
It is not, it is for your local resolver to distinguish a top-level domain from a subdomain (i.e. `foo` gets rewritten to `foo.mydomain.com` or `foo.local`)
man resolv.conf, read up on search domains and the ndots option
Apparently if you have a 11th gen or older Kindle device, the KFX Input plugin and the latest DeDRM will allow you to pull books off it and crack the DRM. This worked for me with my 10th gen Kindle, after the removal of the web download feature.
Mostly the former. I wanted our website to celebrate storytelling, and naming it after one of the oldest Japanese stories felt fitting. Plus, I did love Kaguya from the anime—so that's a bonus. :)
This was an experiment to start learning Svelte[1]. So the information shown, such as whether the year is in fact a perfect square, should update dynamically as you cross into 2025.
This is not true in my experience; you can make a wide range of possible edits without being reverted. Knowing which ones those are requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, not its politics. (There is politics, but it's not like every edit is a battle of minds.)
You'd need to read up on the notability guidelines and find a secondary source to figure whether you can make this edit stick. Though then again, there's often no "power user squatting the page" of any kind, so it might not be reverted even if you fail to adhere to this.
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2018/04/28/meta/