CrushU’s Techdirt Profile

crushu

About CrushU




CrushU’s Comments comment rss

  • May 18th, 2017 @ 11:15am

    Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,

    As opposed to no regulation, which is what just happened, which, um... also removes the public's seat at the table?

  • Jan 24th, 2017 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    [i]stronger preventions against the revolving door between government and industry.[/i]

    While good in theory, these preventions could also prevent Subject Matter Experts from holding political office, one of the severe problems we have in the tech sectory. (People who know how Tech works don't hold public office.)

    I do agree that people who used to literally campaign for certain proposals or laws should probably not be put in charge of approving/denying those proposals.

  • Dec 16th, 2016 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic

    So much for 'html is no longer supported'...

    You can, however, state that they did <racist thing X> at some point, and that thing is objective and verifiable and falls under this policy.

  • Dec 16th, 2016 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic

    Option A: Provide sources to back this up; things they said or did that were racist.

    Option B: They both are, by the strict definition of the word, because everyone is, by the strict definition of the word.

    Corollary: Whether or not they are racist is not possible to be 'fake news', because whether someone is racist or not is a matter of opinion and inherently subjective. You can, however, state that they did at some point, and that thing is *objective* and verifiable and falls under this policy.

    Basically, trying to cut through all the 'but he didn't say/do that!' objections at once. (Or the opposite, proving that he did say/do that thing.)

  • Dec 15th, 2016 @ 10:30am

    Cautiously Optimistic

    I'm in general agreement with you, that trying to block or prevent speech is generally worse than just putting out more speech.

    I feel that nowhere is this more obvious than with 'Fake News' stories. Whenever there is something that's legitimately false, solving that problem is by stating that it's false, and why it's false.

    I only use the 'Fake News' definition associated with 100% factually untrue information.

  • Nov 4th, 2016 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Mountains out of Mole-hills

    The information was already released. The Twitter bot just pointed out where it was. That it happened to be tangentially related is unfortunate and entirely benign.

    Even better, the Twitter bot was supposed to have already sent this information out. So if anything, the 'violation of professional ethics (and possibly laws)' is on anyone who didn't initially release it.

  • Nov 4th, 2016 @ 9:17am

    Mountains out of Mole-hills

    An FBI official told Motherboard that the FBI Records Vault Twitter account had been dormant for more than a year because of a bug in the FBI.gov content management system (CMS) that links the website where the documents are posted and the social media account. On Sunday, according to the official, the FBI’s IT team pushed a patch to the CMS and fixed the bug, causing the flood of tweets, which had been scheduled over the last few months, to go out on October 30.

    This is a perfectly reasonable explanation and serves to highlight the troubles of the modern IT wo--

    Whatever the explanation is, the FBI is pretty much a walking catastrophe at this point -- at least as far as maintaining distance from the electoral process is concerned.

    What. No. NO. This is a valid explanation. There was a bug in the CMS. IT fixed it. You can't possibly claim to start pointing fingers at IT people for doing their jobs.

  • Oct 12th, 2016 @ 9:52am

    Re: It's the internet, ya know?

    There's actually decent points in here, however, I do disagree with the conclusion at the end:

    Every re-tweet is, in it's own way, spreading a little lie or a little twist of the truth.


    I don't believe that is necessarily true. I believe there is an objective truth and that it is shareable. It's why I tend to downplay the importance of 'timing' in releases of Interesting Information. I consider the information itself to be more important than the circumstances behind it. (Who released it, When it was released, Why they released it, How it was released.)

  • Sep 15th, 2016 @ 12:52pm

    User Control

    Shrug. I dunno, it seems to offer greater User Control than it did before. I was actually looking at a game earlier today and noticed that new bar of options. (Halcyon 6. Looks interesting and the reviews were Pretty Good. I'd wager it was a Kickstarter game due to about 50% of the reviews being from Steam Key Users instead of purchases off Steam directly. The 'negative' review said that after 25 hours playing the game he was done playing it forever. ... I'd call that Worth It? Anyway...)

    Waiiiit a minute... a post on Techdirt that has a flawed premise? ... Yep. Geigner. :P (Not all of yours are like this, but the posts here that have a flawed premise are more likely to be yours. Or, at the very least, a very Subjective premise.)

    So yeah. This isn't about 'silencing' reviewers. It's about making sure that you know where the review is coming from. Sure, the fact that each page resets to the default 'Only Steam Purchases' setting is a little odd, but in most cases I only care that there are reviews, period. If there's a bunch of negative reviews, then I'm likely to check 'All' to see if it changes.

    Basically, on the list of things that Steam does that are actually Not Good, this is... pretty far down the list. If this somehow convinced you to not use Steam, I'll be amazed. (Note that the others here who don't use Steam for purchasing have said they didn't prior, either.)

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    The DNC is not part of the government. It is not in charge of any critical infrastructure. It is not privy to classified information. It does not provide any products or services critical to the US, or anyone in it.


    Replace all those 'is' and 'does' with 'should'...

    I really hope that 'is' and 'does' apply to this case, but being pessimistic when it comes to politics, I'm pretty sure 'should' is the correct verb. :(

  • Sep 12th, 2016 @ 12:18pm

    Production Issues

    I'm curious, was production lined up before the Kickstarter was launched?

    The main problem I see with things that I back is production issues; Things like the box they'd planned to use turns out to not be large enough or sturdy enough... Or a test run coming back wrong and needing to be fixed...

    So for these bags, you said you had the prototype, and you got it through the normal production line that you'd use for the successful campaign? Or did you prototype it youselves?

  • Aug 24th, 2016 @ 10:12am

    Re:

    Eh... I use a podcast app, AntennaPod, and it has the option to increase playback speed. It does mildly alter the pitch, but not by much.

  • Aug 23rd, 2016 @ 9:58am

    'Gunfire'

    There was an incident two weeks ago at a mall near me where someone thought that something being dropped on the floor was gunfire so it spooked them, and next thing you know the mall's evacuated and shut down for the day, over *absolutely nothing*. Well done. Well done.

    Oh and people got arrested for going up to police and asking to assist them with whatever's going on.

    Thankfully I don't think anyone got trampled in this incident.

  • May 9th, 2016 @ 9:54am

    Re: Can't imagine where the confusion comes from.

    I think it's a conflation of terms.

    Bitrate is a measure of transfer speed for data over the internet. It's also a measure of quality for a audio/visual pieces; (roughly) how many bits are processed per second. A lower quality file has a lower bitrate, and a lower filesize.

    It's only 'throttling' if you think that the video bitrate also means the transfer bitrate, which it doesn't. A 600kbps bitrate file can be sent faster than 600kbps...

  • May 9th, 2016 @ 9:51am

    Baseball?

    The rhetoric for ‘net neutrality’ has always been about user empowerment.

    Strike One!
    Net Neutrality has always been about not obstructing user choice.
    But the FCC wound up writing a hard-line rule that seems to completely ban broadband providers from adjusting video quality even if users want that.

    Strike Two!
    Because broadband providers are not video providers. The way this relates to Net Neutrality is that a broadband provider is not supposed to know anything about what sort of data is being sent, nor are they supposed to treat certain data as 'special'. (Outside of load balancing and network infrastructure issues.)

    It means consumers won’t get the kind of master interface that can manage quality across all video platforms — which, in turn, would make ordinary users comfortable experimenting with multiple video platforms.

    Strike Three!
    Why would anyone expect you to manage quality across different platforms? That's why they're different platforms. Some will give you more (or better) options than others, that's the nature of competition.

    YOU'RE OUT!!

  • Mar 31st, 2016 @ 1:10pm

    Simple

    We can boil this down to very simple logic:

    -A more secure system is better than a less secure system.

    -A system without a backdoor is more secure than a system with a backdoor.

    -Therefore, systems without backdoors are better than systems with backdoors.

    I believe the opposition argues against one or more of these three points, but all three of them are self-evident.

    (You can prove all of them through induction if necessary.)

    Oh, there is one exception to the first point. A perfectly secure system is worthless. (A perfectly secure system simply doesn't allow any access, ever.) However, just because we can never have a perfectly secure system does not mean we should accept a less secure system when offered.

  • Jan 12th, 2016 @ 10:27am

    Hmm

    "Oh no, this DRM is soooooo hard to break, guys. It'd be so terrible if, say, every game came with this DRM, right, big publishers?"

    That's what it sounds like to me, and I hope that's what it is. :)

  • Dec 11th, 2015 @ 11:05am

    Oh thank god

    Read the footnote. Immediately stopped trying to make the Satire-O-Meter shut up for blaring false positives... I was afraid it was broken!

    Nope, working just fine.

    Nice.

  • Dec 10th, 2015 @ 7:08am

    Name Suggestion

    How about 'Platform Protection laws' instead of Intermediary Liability?

  • Aug 5th, 2015 @ 11:28am

    Counterpoint?

    Have you considered the argument that the reason the 'top 10 stolen ideas' is so mediocre, is because of strong IP laws, punishing attempted stealers?

    (I don't buy it myself, but it would be the first thing a devil's advocate would bring up.)

More comments from CrushU >>