Shufflepants’s Techdirt Profile

shufflepants

About Shufflepants




Shufflepants’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 18th, 2020 @ 11:37am

    Re:

    Because it seems the patent office now takes the meaning of the word "novel" to be literally anything they haven't seen before (and they very often haven't seen much of what's actually out there), instead of "new or unusual in an interesting way." i.e. something that not everyone and their mothers would have and could have easily designed if they had had the need.

  • Jan 29th, 2020 @ 2:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    I still can't get over the fact that people are so dumb at computers that we even need a law like Section 230. No one has any problems understanding that you don't hold Honda responsible for the actions of a bank robber because they used a Honda brand car in their getaway; or the gun manufacturers for that matter.

  • Aug 27th, 2019 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re:

    "I'm not saying the cop in this story wasn't a racist, he may well have been, but he also could have just been a "RESPECT MUH AUTHORITAH" asshole like the dickhead that pulled me over, who latched onto the first thing he saw."

    It seems there a lot of overlap between racists and "RESPECT MUH AUTHORITAH" assholes. Probably because they both come from the same supposition, that they feel that they are inherently better than some other class of people.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 10:40am

    Re: 'How dare they try to hide behind 'the law'!'

    It's like setting up a fake Best Buy, then arresting people who tried to shop there because you're pretty sure they were there to buy stolen TV's.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 7:46am

    (untitled comment)

    Imagine if the court ruled that being a patent troll was a matter of fact rather than opinion. And then ATL was forced to prove in court that they weren't a patent troll. And then imagine the court definitively finding that they were in fact a patent troll.

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes it is!

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!

  • Aug 13th, 2019 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    He's not delusional, he's just so persuasive he's persuaded himself that he's very persuasive!

  • Aug 12th, 2019 @ 10:28am

    (untitled comment)

    Fun fact, since social security numbers are only 9 digit numbers, there are only 999,999,999 possible numbers. With each numeral being a single byte and a billion bytes in a gigabyte, it'd be fairly trivial to produce a file that contains all valid and all unused social security numbers. Uncompressed, the file would only be ~1GB, and it would probably compress very well.

  • Aug 12th, 2019 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re:

    Additionally, a string of nine digits could easily crop up in code itself - and heaven forbid the code happens to deal with physical or mailing address formats. The lawsuits assertions are made from the perspective of someone who doesn't know a goddamn thing about what they are stating should be easy.

    Or hell, the git hub project could be some code to specially handle social security numbers and have mock social security numbers in some unit test class!

  • Aug 6th, 2019 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: This is a bad post

    "there is nothing illegal about being a white supremacist"

    Correct, but it's not a protected class either. So, there's nothing illegal about twitter banning a user for being a white supremacist. And people are arguing that maybe they should. This is not silencing them. They will not go to jail for saying these things. It will just be twitter deciding not to provide a platform for them to help spread their hateful ideology.

    As always, there's a relevant xkcd for this notion.
    https://xkcd.com/1357/

  • Aug 6th, 2019 @ 12:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    Ever-relevant xkcd

    https://xkcd.com/1425/

  • Aug 2nd, 2019 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: It's Adorable

    It's worse than that. In addition to proving that any one was censored for their conservative views, they'd have to prove that this happens to conservatives disproportionately more than other other groups.

  • Jul 31st, 2019 @ 7:31am

    (untitled comment)

    Combines Junk Science With Lie Detectors

    So, combines junk science with junk science?

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 11:31am

    What's in a name...

    Is it just me or is Palantir an extremely apt name?

    A tempting device that seems like you could use to spy on and gain an advantage over evil, but which ultimate just corrupts and exposes one's self to the Dark Lord of Mordor.

  • Jul 16th, 2019 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    Almost. But from the Nazi-logic point of view, all of those different Mastodon groups and orgs are obviously under the control of said "cabal of (((globalists)))".

    Because that's how conspiracy theories work. Anyone who acts or argues against the claims made by the conspiracy theorist is either a direct member of the conspiracy, under the thumb of some one who's part of the conspiracy, or has been brainwashed by the conspirators. And this makes the set of conspirators ever growing, until the conspiracy theorist sees almost everyone as part of the conspiracy except for those "righteous" few fighting against an overwhelming system, which really feeds into the underdog and persecution complex of the conspiracy theorist and makes them feel even more special and righteous as they "know" they are one of the few people fighting for the "truth".

  • Jun 4th, 2019 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Techdirt Community

    "the community here at Techdirt is remarkably civil."

    True, but it is also quite small, at least compared to the likes of the New York Times.

  • May 31st, 2019 @ 7:59am

    Re:

    Probably in some so called "vertical" mergers where one company buys another that is above or below them in a supply chain. So, like if a steel forging company bought a mining company that mines iron ore. So long as afterwards they still have to compete with other steel producers, the merger may let them lower their own prices because now the steel forging part of the business doesn't have to pay a premium for the iron ore since the mining part no longer has to earn a profit on its own. Like, if it costs the mining company $100 to mine some ore, and it costs the forging company $100 to forge some ore if they already have the ore, and lets say companies want to make a 10% profit, then before the merger the forging company has to buy the ore for $110 (mining cost + $10 profit for the mining company) then spend another $100 to forge it, so their total costs are $210, then if they want a 10% profit themselves would sell for $231. But if they owned the mining company, their costs would only be $200 and could sell for $220 and be making a 10% profit.

    Now, of course, the company post merger doesn't have to settle for just a 10% margin. They could always merge, and continue to sell at $231 and be making a 15.5% profit now instead. But in theory, if there is plenty of competition in the market, they could make more total money by choosing to sell at some lower price than $231 (because they would still be making a profit on each sale) and in theory gain extra volume of sales now that more people might buy from them instead of a competitor because they are cheaper.

    There are similar efficiencies to be had in "horizontal" mergers where you're essentially buying a competitor because while many costs go up directly proportional to the number of store fronts and sales a business has, some costs go up at a rate less than directly proportional, the so called "economy of scale". This is how companies like Walmart and and Amazon can afford to sell many products for so cheap, because they sell so many things at such a large scale, they can afford to have a very small margin on each individual thing sold and out-compete smaller stores while still making massive total profits.

    But of course in both cases, these only lead to lower prices for consumers when the merging companies don't out-compete their competitors into oblivion. Because once there are no more competitors, there's no incentive for a big company to keep prices super low.

    But yes, there have been mergers that have led to lower prices for consumers, and mergers that have led to greater efficiency which in theory leads to greater wealth for the country. But it doesn't always happen, and capitalism is inherently exploitative in the first place for myriad reasons.

  • May 31st, 2019 @ 7:35am

    (untitled comment)

    "T-mobile and Sprint would be forced to divest spectrum and other assets to create a fourth competitor to keep the market semi-healthy"

    Hey, I have an idea. We can call the new company U-Mobile. And to be effective competition we'll have to get them set up from the beginning. So, they should probably receive all of T-Mobile's microwave towers, because how you gonna run a new cell network without the cell towers? And of course U-Mobile's gonna need people to maintain those cell towers, so the cell tower workers from T-Mobile can go work for U-Mobile. Also, U-Mobile is gonna need a bunch of store fronts to sell phones and plans for their new network, so I guess they can just have T-Mobile's store fronts since there's gonna be a bunch of redundancy from the ones they'll be acquiring from Sprint. And then of course U-Mobile's gonna need a bunch of offices and corporate employees to keep the whole business running so T-Mobile can probably spare a bunch of those to give to U-Mobile.

    Yeah, so, T-Mobile can just give all those things to U-Mobile and then T-Mobile can "merge" with Sprint, and we get a brand "new" company to compete with them.

  • May 28th, 2019 @ 10:41am

    Re: Call a spade a spade.

    The only difference between "soft" corruption and "actual" corruption is legal technicality and enforcement. They're both corruption.

More comments from Shufflepants >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it