461–470 of 477 posts
I like lichess, it is my first go to website to play chess, but for-profit models also have their advantages. For example in chess.com, they pay grandmasters to be there, and one can learn a lot from grandmasters. They earn money, and invest them back so the site can be even better. So I think neither model is wrong, or inherently better than the other.
You almost sound like the world champion don't usually play on Lichess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for pointing out this out and making it click in my head that what they're doing could be done for other games. I've got one or two game designs of my own that I could probably make something like this with, but it didn't really click I could use this code as a reference until then.
Well, good luck for your endeavors and please let me know (email in my profile) if you need a beta tester or early user.
I do have other game designs I'm working on and a different version of the game I'm thinking of that is aimed at a bit more of a casual audience (even putting Twitch streamer friendly things in there), but I do hope to get to a point where there can be some real data on how to play well in the game, and it is basically a board game anyway (I have a physical prototype for the board game version made, but it's never been published).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do agree, but most people want a lot of money. They might say they just want some protein in their noodles, but deep down they are a Zuck. It seems like every financially successful developer out there came from a middle/upper class enviornment. Once they smell money, it's always more, more, and more. If the get big enough they blame it on their shareholders? Guys like Thibault are a different breed. They are rare.…
I truly cannot fathom why anyone would Zuckerberg as their president.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It seems like every financially successful developer out there came from a middle/upper class enviornment. I think this is more likely evidence of how many advantages being brought up in those environments gives in becoming financially successful. Not having to worry about paying for college, for example, leading to having more seed funding to be able to start working on your own projects, and potentially even havin…
Where do you live that the middle class doesn't have to worry about paying for college? I grew up somewhere between working and middle class and by the time I got accepted into a state school my folks had earned just enough money to report to FAFSA that I didn't need aid -- but they had no significant savings with which to send me. Despite my father being a traditional engineer my whole life, and my mother had a care…
Europe, most likely... You know, those socialist countries where there is still a middle class.
So many comments failing to grasp the idea of someone wanting his job/passion to be publicly available at the cost of him not getting rich. So sad.
That is not even close to how this thread turned out. Would you please not post low-quality disses like this? They break the site guidelines, like this one: " Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. " ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) - and they lead to extremely low-quality discussion, as seen below.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sugar and salt added to food is an attack on our reward system - but that doesn't make it good food. The fact is that human biological impulse does not line up with rational objectives. People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable - they'd ask for them, much like those "shopping channels" you can choose to watch.
As a general comment - human biological impulses do generally line up with rational objectives. That is why we have them. Normally they line up with ideas that are so good it makes sense to embed them in how we live. > People wouldn't need to be subjected to ads if it was desirable Substantial value from ads is they communicate (1) what people didn't yet know existed and (2) what everyone else knows (because they saw…
evolutionary objectives are not rational. Nor are they particularly up-to-date, especially sugar cravings. Addictions, vices and impulses of many kinds are not at all rational, and it is a virtue to have the willpower to resist them.
> (1) what people didn't yet know existed
This is far from the only objective, and the substance of many ads demonstrates this: why do brands like coca-cola pay top-dollar for superbowl ad time? You would think they are well known enough..
> (2) what everyone else knows
Ads are not knowledge, it is common cultural reference for the purpose of advertisement. I don't see the value in this if you are not an advertiser.
> Ads work by and large because people want the products that the ads are selling
If we follow the same logic, no one would object to ad blockers, b/c the people who want to see ads wouldn't use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're the one assuming that the website will offer you something of interest without any reason to do so Says who? Arguing against ads isn't arguing against compensation. You're assuming what is being assumed.
Says the comment I replied to > When I go to a website, I decide to direct my attention to this website, because I believe it will offer something of interest to me.
You are specifically talking about compensation, which that quote does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any other kind of code which can be ascertained to obey its user?
There are many free and open source ad trackers out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any other kind of code which can be ascertained to obey its user?
The question is who audits it etc. This will become more funny with We assembly. There review isnahrder and even if it is free software it will be ages to verify the code the server delivers matches the source. There is a fundamental control issue where a license debate is irrelevant detour. (For me this is the biggest flaw in the FSF - they haven't grasped that yet, while smart ideas would be needed)
That's why the FSF takes a stand against what it calls "software as a service substitute". Technically, they are correct, for the reason stated above. An Internet that is pure protocol, with clients for remote services being local apps, is not difficult to imagine; in fact, that's how it started and that's how it still works.
What's different is the friction of running an embedded blob from a webpage is negligible compared to installing a package on your OS, therefore the "distribution" phase of the software lifecycle is effectively factored out, making the opportunity for user choice minimal. (Unless you run NoScript or LibreJS by default, which I support.)
Economically, SaaS is the path of least resistance. You deliver your product through the same platform that people use to browse cat pics, and it works invisibly enough that users never question whether it's doing the right thing. This creates ample opportunity for externalities to be dumped onto the end user, as we observe with the nascent privacy crisis.
Perhaps such an externality is of a sufficiently complex or speculative nature that users may not be able to identify it, or willing to care. But that doesn't mean it's ruled out; at least in theory, integrating with the existing legal system by way of distributing your code under a Libre license seems like a good way to nip possible shenanigans in the bud. (As far as your code is concerned, of course - as opposed to everyone else's non-free code out there.)
Of course, everyone is free to do what they think best, but it's good to have the FSF's radical evangelism as a point of reference - it's quite possible to do meaningful computing in this way, although maybe not as part of an organization that ignores the ethical underpinnings of its methods! (And that's what computers do best nowadays: algowashing.)
Sadly, I find the FSF's approach to the Web somewhat misplaced - for software that is neither locally deployed, nor accessed as an opaque service, but remotely delivered on-demand, focus should be on the delivery chain being auditable, and source maps being available, in the case of WASM and minified JS.
Instead, we get LibreJS, which is, as far as I can see, a license-based whitelist - regardless of the fact that non-minified JS is open-source by definition and never compiled to a binary form. The GPL doesn't make a whole lot of sense for embedded scripts, powerful as they are. It would be more relevant for WebAssembly, that's for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I truly cannot fathom why anyone would Zuckerberg as their president.
Everyone's just looking for someone they can trust so they don't have to read and actively discuss things.