There are a lot of French influence in England's place names (and the language in general) from the couple of centuries after 1066 when the Normans ruled the roost.
I don't think India had a democracy before the Brits, either.
Not that it gives anyone else the right to come in and declare themselves Raj. But Vicky wasn't the first to come to India and declare themselves in charge.
For new sites that is definitely practical. Modern versions of Chrom{e|ium} & Firefox (and other browsers based on them) have defaulted to HTTPS when the protocol is not specified. The only potential issue is if users do specify the protocol and leave the S out, it would be good for browsers to try HTTPS when HTTP fails (though only if it completely fails to connect).
Hmm. I am perhaps confusing announced plans, and the effect of the HSTS preload lists, with actually released changes to defaults.
I'll have to install some fresh VMs and see what behaviour I get out-of-the-box with no HSTS cache (and sites not on the preload lists) on various OSs, to correct my understanding.
Is there a public dump of the data anywhere that this is based upon, or have they scraped it themselves?
Such as DB might be entertaining to play with, and the threadedness of comments would be useful for beginners to practise efficient recursive queries (more so than the StackExchange dumps, for instance).
Yes, you can see the download HN bash script in the repository now that simply extract the data to your local machine from BigQuery and saves it as a series of gzip JSON files
Ooh, that sounds useful as a pretty mix-in-bad-data method for scrapers. Have a few of these tags do if junk, even though they are hidden it'll look to a scraper that cares about hidden/not like they aren't always hidden so are likely to contain something worth adding to their DB…
I'd need to look into what effect this might have on accessibility, but my gut says "very little".
> And no one in the comments, of which many look fake too, notices it is AI. That is the most scary part.
Many who notice won't bother commenting, because most who notice know how pointless that is (counterproductive in fact: a comment is an interaction, any interaction is a positive for the "content"). Those that do notice and comment are either drowned out by
• those too numbed on the brain to care, let alone notice, who lap it up, and praise it
• bots (either those being used to interact with the clip to drive it's interactions counters, or more general spam bots)
or if there is anyone/anybot monitoring the negative comments are removed.
Does ffmpeg's gif processing support palette-per-frame yet? Last time I compared them (years ago, maybe not long after that blog post), this was a key benefit of gifski allowing it to get better results for the same filesize in many cases (not all, particularly small images, as the total size of the palette information can be significant).
The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement.
A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect.
But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.
> If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
> c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on.
Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.
> the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise)
The hell? Over here, the price tags are a sort of public contract, to which the seller pre-commits. The seller forgot to change the tags? That's not the buyer's problem.
Since money has not exchanged hands, you could always decide not to buy at the counter. So atleast in the countries I have been, it is not legally binding.
Only if deliberate. If the incorrect price is corrected as soon as the problem is noticed then that is (legally) fine. If the incorrect price is left displayed, or was put up deliberately to draw people in, then it is bait & switch.
The other solid bait & switch is advertising a product that they don't have any of to sell, in the hope that you'll come in and buy something more expensive (or lower value) instead.
> Thank you notes from AI systems can’t possibly feel meaningful,
The same as automated apologies.
Not from an “AI”, but I spent over an hour⁰ waiting for a delayed train¹, then the journey, on Tuesday, being regaled every few minutes with an automated “we apologise for your journey taking longer than expected” which is far more irritating than no apology at all.
--------
[0] I lie a little here - living near the station and having access to live arrival estimations online meant I could leave the house late and only be waited on the platform ~20 minutes, but people for whom this train was a connecting leg of a longer journey didn't have that luxury.
[1] which was actually an earlier train, the slot in the timetable for the one I was booked on was simply cancelled, so some were waiting over two hours
My dad (retired philosophy and ethics instructor) once told me, "Today the self-checkout computer thanked me for shopping there. Do you think it was being sincere?"
Perhaps “regularly updated” would be less contentious wordage?
reply