Cloudflare is an enemy of the open and freely accessible web.
Readit Newscaesil commented on Large ancient Hawaiian petroglyphs uncovered by waves on Oahu sfgate.com/hawaii/article... · Posted by u/c420
caesil commented on US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/gausswho
caesil commented on US Court nullifies FTC requirement for click-to-cancel arstechnica.com/tech-poli... · Posted by u/gausswho
What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?
This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.
If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that.
The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.
It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.
Google is being competitive.
YC is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Google and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing for free. Oh and also I’m probably going to sell it back to you someday for a lot of money”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the law”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.
Standard Oil is being competitive.
The U.S. oil refining and distribution industry is being anti-competitive.
Because they suck at competing against Standard Oil and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.
Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing”.
And before someone tells me “that’s the Sherman Act”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.
(I hope this illustrates how easy it is to make this exact argument about literally any monopoly.)
caesil commented on The <select> element can now be customized with CSS developer.chrome.com/blog... · Posted by u/tosh
That's fair, but I assume that is the initial implementation. Surely, over time, browser vendors will want to make the full spectrum of select functionality available consistently.
I don't think browsers will ever let web code affect things outside the viewport because scammers would cook up some truly zany things with that power.
caesil commented on NLRB acting general counsel rescinds non-compete labor policy natlawreview.com/article/... · Posted by u/moonka
Does this matter? Corporations are on notice that this pendulum may swing the other way in four years (and remains permanently stuck the other way in certain states). They might just decide to steer clear of this minefield.
caesil commented on Cheap blood test detects pancreatic cancer before it spreads nature.com/articles/d4158... · Posted by u/rbanffy
You have to be careful with screening tests.
Say that this test has a false positive 1 in 1000 times. If you test 100,000 people, you'll get 100 positives that need invasive further testing and followup, and 5 real pancreatic cancer cases.
Society will pay for 100,000 tests, and 105 cases of followup. You may cause lasting harm to some of those 105 people. And then it's not clear if you can improve the survival of the 5 pancreatic cancer cases much. They'll live longer after diagnosis (because you diagnosed earlier) but not necessarily longer overall.
(One other screening effect: You'll find more "real cancer" that is so slow growing that it may have always remained subclinical before the more sensitive testing; And the most serious cancers, you won't find so much sooner, because they grow so much in the interval between tests.)
Then let's take those things into account when calculating what tests to do. Surely, though, we can do better as a society than solving this with "no preemptive testing except for extreme risks".
How long do you think we should wait before we replace the judiciary with polymarket ;)
Listen, if you think I'm wrong then go profit off how wrong I am. You can put your money where your mouth is anytime you want.
That people are declining to do so is, I think, revealing.
4chan got hacked a while back because they were running a totally outdated software stack. It's been pretty much abandoned by its owner hiromoot.
If they aren't going to update the site for basic maintainance, they definitely aren't going to implement all this chat control/ age verification bullcrap.
I suppose a resistance to change is good when your competitors are burying their own graves.
Very similar to these dystopian foreign laws. But because they're US states 4chan will not be able to use the "we only recognize US law" defense.