Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saved by Alice

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Saved by Alice

#41

Post by edmccard »

dang wrote: post #39
mixmastamyk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like to read over the rest of the thread.

I believe I did? But you have to follow the rules regardless of how badly someone else broke them or whether they started it. I know how annoying that is. But it always feels like the other person started it and did worse, so if we don't approach the problem this way, it's a downward spiral for the lot of us.

>it always feels like the other person started it

In this case, the other person said "Many people will just quietly write you off as a hopeless dweeb if you expose your laziness in this way."

Is that not a personal attack because it's hidden behind one layer of indirection?

>if we don't approach the problem this way, it's a downward spiral

I get that it's not easy moderating a site like this when there's only two of you to do the job, but once you've shown up in the thread, is it that much more work to call out everyone involved instead of just picking the last nasty comment?

Re: Saved by Alice

#42

Post by Buge »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #21
lisper wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or by reading the article. Good grief, what's the matter with kids today?

Title comes before reading. How's that workin' for you, the acting like an ass part?

Title comes before reading. And reading comes before commenting (hopefully).

Re: Saved by Alice

#43

Post by quickthrower »

lisper wrote: post #10
kyberias wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the linked page does not adequately explain what Alice is. To me it was clear that it was some important court case and they just want to call it "Alice". But I can understand why it might be hard to understand for some.

You can't be serious. The very first words of the article are: "In Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that ..." That makes it clear that "Alice v. CLS Bank" is a court case, and Alice was the name of one of the litigants. That phrase is linked to another article, whose first sentence is: "In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank today." Anyone older than six…

Six? Really? I must have been a dumb kid by that bar.

Re: Saved by Alice

#44

Post by alok-g »

makecheck wrote: post #20

I can see two rules that would help immensely with trolls: 1. There should be an absolute maximum on the litigation that can be brought against any organization for any reason in a given time period (say, a year), and that total cost should not be able to exceed some tiny fraction of its total operating costs for that period (parent companies included, to avoid hiding actual illegal activities in subsidiaries). In ot…

I have a similar but opposite proposal:

The intended purpose of patents is to _support_ innovation. People spending time and money on inventing should be able to reap financial benefits of such research rather than seeing their hard research work just being copied over by someone else.

Thereby there should be an absolute maximum on the litigation brought by someone using patents based on the R&D spend they had for the said patent(s). Let's say that the litigation can at most be 10x of the said investment.

Since determining how much of the R&D expenses were directed towards the said patents could be tough, the maximum litigation for all patents could be set to 10x the money a company has spent on R&D in say the two years preceding the filing of concerned patents. This means that if a company sues X for $120 million after having spend $20 million for the given period, they can now sue someone else for at most $80 million for any other patent(s) over the same period. Further details can be worked out.

Re: Saved by Alice

#45

Post by inimino »

jfaucett wrote: post #35

Why not just make all patents illegal? Then just let companies mitigate the risks of IP infringement through the purchase of insurance. The insurer could offer various policies some that compensate for all losses due to infringment and/or also going after perpetrators, etc. This seems like a more optimal solution to me than the current lot of legislation and trolling, I think it would maximize rate of innovation whil…

I don't get it. What would it mean to "go after perpetrators" if there's no longer any such thing as a patent?

Re: Saved by Alice

#46

Post by lisper »

edmccard wrote: post #41
dang wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I did? But you have to follow the rules regardless of how badly someone else broke them or whether they started it. I know how annoying that is. But it always feels like the other person started it and did worse, so if we don't approach the problem this way, it's a downward spiral for the lot of us.

>it always feels like the other person started it In this case, the other person said "Many people will just quietly write you off as a hopeless dweeb if you expose your laziness in this way." Is that not a personal attack because it's hidden behind one layer of indirection? >if we don't approach the problem this way, it's a downward spiral I get that it's not easy moderating a site like this when there's only two of…

> Is that not a personal attack

No, it isn't. That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact. It's a lesson that I had to learn the hard way, and I said it because I wish someone had said it to me back in the day. If someone had, it would have saved me a lot of pain.

But now I understand why no one did. I will certainly never make the mistake of trying to offer this advice on HN again.

Re: Saved by Alice

#47

Post by edmccard »

lisper wrote: post #46
edmccard wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it always feels like the other person started it In this case, the other person said "Many people will just quietly write you off as a hopeless dweeb if you expose your laziness in this way." Is that not a personal attack because it's hidden behind one layer of indirection? >if we don't approach the problem this way, it's a downward spiral I get that it's not easy moderating a site like this when there's only two of…

> Is that not a personal attack No, it isn't. That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact. It's a lesson that I had to learn the hard way, and I said it because I wish someone had said it to me back in the day. If someone had, it would have saved me a lot of pain. But now I understand why no one did. I will certainly never make the mistake of trying to offer this advice on HN…

>That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact.

So if instead of calling you an ass, 'mixmastamyk has said to you "many people would think you're acting like an ass for commenting like this" -- would that also be something you wish people had said you back in the day? Or are you so convinced of the value of your "advice" that you wouldn't care what many people would think?

EDIT:

>I wish someone had said it to me back in the day. If someone had, it would have saved me a lot of pain.

I am genuinely sorry that people treated you so badly for asking questions.

Re: Saved by Alice

#48

Post by lisper »

edmccard wrote: post #47
lisper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that not a personal attack No, it isn't. That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact. It's a lesson that I had to learn the hard way, and I said it because I wish someone had said it to me back in the day. If someone had, it would have saved me a lot of pain. But now I understand why no one did. I will certainly never make the mistake of trying to offer this advice on HN…

>That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact. So if instead of calling you an ass, 'mixmastamyk has said to you "many people would think you're acting like an ass for commenting like this" -- would that also be something you wish people had said you back in the day? Or are you so convinced of the value of your "advice" that you wouldn't care what many people would think? EDIT:…

I certainly would not consider it a personal attack.

And it wasn't for asking questions. It was for asking stupid questions. Important distinction.

Re: Saved by Alice

#49

Post by edmccard »

lisper wrote: post #48
edmccard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That "layer of indirection" changes it from a personal attack to a statement of fact. So if instead of calling you an ass, 'mixmastamyk has said to you "many people would think you're acting like an ass for commenting like this" -- would that also be something you wish people had said you back in the day? Or are you so convinced of the value of your "advice" that you wouldn't care what many people would think? EDIT:…

I certainly would not consider it a personal attack. And it wasn't for asking questions. It was for asking stupid questions. Important distinction.

>I certainly would not consider it a personal attack.

Fair enough. I suppose there's a certain type of person you've never had to interact with; but can you imagine the existence of such a person who, when they said "many people will just write you off as a hopeless dweeb", what they actually meant was "many people including myself..." or "all the people whose opinion matters..."?

In other words, the sort of person who, when they want to make a personal attack, hide behind the kind of language that lets them claim they're just stating a fact about what other people think?

After our little back-and-forth, I don't believe that you are that kind of person; and maybe its a problem with me that I'm too ready to connect insulting language with ill intent; I just find it easier all around to frame things in a way that avoids any misapprehensions (for example, by pointing out "stupid" questions by saying "HN users don't appreciate questions that could be easily answered by reading the article and using Google")

Re: Saved by Alice

#50

Post by lisper »

edmccard wrote: post #49
lisper wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly would not consider it a personal attack. And it wasn't for asking questions. It was for asking stupid questions. Important distinction.

>I certainly would not consider it a personal attack. Fair enough. I suppose there's a certain type of person you've never had to interact with; but can you imagine the existence of such a person who, when they said "many people will just write you off as a hopeless dweeb", what they actually meant was "many people including myself..." or "all the people whose opinion matters..."? In other words, the sort of person w…

> can you imagine the existence of such a person

I am acquainted with the "precious snowflake" theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake). I was hoping it wasn't true. Alas.

Post reply on HN