The mobile-focused development cycle and its consequences have been a disaster for user agency.

Could you repeat that louder for the folks at the back?

(Also, it’s a statement that’s generally true in ways completely unreleated to AI.)

Don’t call copyright infringement “piracy,” either.

Since AIs are trained on copyleft code, either every output of AI code generators is copyleft, or none of it is legal to use at all.

It’s not a backup unless you can restore from it.

yt-dlp gets blocked more often than Firefox + ublock Origin for me.

What fucking “service?” Software running locally on my own computer isn’t a goddamned “service” to begin with!

Also, fuck off with your bullshit assumption of bad faith.

the software is just licensed

That is a GODDAMN LIE perpetrated by copyright cartel shysters to swindle all of us. The entire legal theory that assertion rests on is absolute nonsense: they want to pretend that you “need” to accept an “EULA” to use the software because otherwise copying it from the installation media onto your hard drive and/or into RAM would be a violation, but that is wrong because 17 U.S. Code § 117 (a) (1) carves out an explicit exception that allows it. EULAs are bunk and do not constitute a valid contact, as they not only lack ‘acceptance’ because they attempt to work on adhesion (trying to impose new terms after-the-fact when the transaction to obtain the copy has already occurred and concluded), but fail to provide any meaningful ‘consideration’ to begin with!

They can pry my hardware and software that I own from my cold, dead hands.

Ad-blocking is a property right. I have every right to control what my device does or does not display, by definition of ownership. Conversely, advertisers or other parties attempting to colonize my device by forcing it to display something against my (the owner’s) will is a hostile act that violates my rights.

Nobody gives a shit about housing in bumfuck nowhere exurbs. It simply does not count because pretending people can be warehoused there when they can’t does not solve the problem.

Quit citing irrelevant bullshit and talk only about housing within commuting distance of downtown Vancouver or Toronto (or in general, urban centers where people actually want to be), because that’s what actually matters.

It def is both financialization and zoning. Restrictive zoning increases the value of housing hence line goes up.

The difference is that financialization is a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it. It is enabled by the imbalance between supply and demand caused by the zoning laws restricting the supply.

Rezoning is framed as increasing supply and affordability, instead of decreasing values of existing homes. When both will happen.

“Increasing affordability” and “decreasing value” are mathematically equivalent statements, so yeah. Obviously.

(In fact, that’s why the problem is so hard to solve: NIMBY homeowners will claim to be all for “housing affordability” in theory, but in reality they absolutely hate it because they benefit from prices being high. Zoning that restricts density is a symptom of society being held hostage by the already-privileged, demanding ever more subsidies for themselves)

You haven’t been keeping up with the changes in the law. There is no such thing as single family zoning inside cities in BC anymore.

The provincial government made it so that essentially any property in a municipality over 5000 people is allowed to have 3 units if it’s under 280 square meters, or 4 units if it’s over 280 square meters.

In other words, they capped supply at a slightly higher level than it was before. Whoop-de-fuckin’-do, it’s still a cap!

(Also, BC policy does fuck-all for Ontario.)

Again, there’s no shortage, there’s plenty of housing available, it’s just that there’s a lot of over-housed people who are hogging properties they don’t reasonably need.

Again, that is factually untrue. You’re so Hell-bent on finding scapegoats you can’t even think rationally.

I argue it is not, because unreasonable desire shouldn’t be part of “housing” conversations.

If every single person wanted a detached house on Robson Street, that’s clearly just stupid and should be ignored.

You’re right that it’s stupid, but that’s what the laws attempt to do! It Is literally illegal to replace single-family houses with denser housing in the vast majority of Toronto, Vancouver, etc. That means everybody who doesn’t fit in those houses is physically displaced to the exurbs, never mind that the increasing demand with no accompanying increase in supply makes prices skyrocket.

I don’t care about your nonsensical attempt to redefine what words mean; that’s objectively a shortage!

Shortages are what restrictive zoning laws are designed to do, and they are working exactly as intended. If you don’t like that outcome, the only sane thing to do is abolish them.

There is also some distribution issues around where those houses are located compared to the desires of where people want to live. If someone has a house in Edmonton, but wants to live in Vancouver in a similar house and can’t afford it, is that a housing shortage in Vancouver? I would argue it is not.

It absolutely is. Houses aren’t fungible; they don’t fucking move! A house in Edmonton is not a substitute for a house in Vancouver!

Housing is not fungible. It doesn’t matter how much supply there is in the middle of nowhere; lack of supply in the places people actually want to live is a shortage.

Also, it has fuck-all to do with financialization and everything to do with restrictive zoning laws that enshrine single-family. Y’all are literally prohibiting building more density; WTF did you think was gonna happen?!

Did you really get other results, or did you get papers that were still accurately described by the editorialized titles? On the one I looked up, the author and publication date were the same, and it really was about “the repeated survival of systems never intended to work [under the more extreme than designed conditions they were subjected to]” even if the actual title wasn’t that spicy.

I’m not sure they are as real as OP claims, unfortunately. I looked up NASA-TN-D-6193 for you, but its actual title is “Dynamic and static wind tunnel tests of a flow direction vane”.

Edit: happily, the content of the paper really is about formalizing the performance rating of a device that had been used in conditions beyond its original intended use.

(It’s funny because we can’t stop them from passing straight through the pool.)

I live in an area that can have high radon levels, but haven’t worried about it too much because my old house has a vented basement/crawlspace that leaks air like a sieve. It’s really with modern construction, that seals houses up tight for energy efficiency, that it becomes a bigger problem.

I think it being an emerging issue may also be part of why it’s not screened for yet.

(It’s also important to keep all this stuff in mind when doing renovations, since they can change the way the building works as a system. Having recently bricked up my crawlspace vents, this post reminds me that I should do a radon test…)

Utahraptor is the size of the ones in the movie and was discovered the same year the movie came out. I like to think that’s what they are, but Crichton and/or Spielberg just thought “velociraptor” was a cooler name.

Please cite sources for your meme.

(No seriously, I want to read them!)