> researchers believe that when a lender has a more intimate relationship with the potential client’s history, they might be more willing to cut them some slack
Is it a comedy writing? Lender can't have "a more intimate relationship" with anything because today it's a computer. Automated sociopath.
1. $10 for GET request and ten license-domain pairs. For one project. $50 for ten projects and 100 licenses per project. Too pricey for small amount.
2. Nothing stops user from simply removing qeys.js from a page.
3. Functions in your js file are called "v" for validation, "iv" for invalid license error and "vv" for setting validation cookie. They can conflict with other similarly name functions from other parts of your customers's JS.
4. You set validation cookies on the client side. You literally have a code to bypass your system in your system.
5. User interface may be much better. There's too much hassle in setting up multiple keys. I need to switch between pages to do it.
Conclusion: your software isn't good, your prices are high. Something like that can be accomplished in one day with a couple PHP scripts tied to MySQL database with lifetime control over it. Everybody who needs it most likely are able to implement it themselves. You need to put more effort in it and polish it more to make it really attractive for others. It's a nice job for "Intro to Webdev" course project, but not for actual product someone will pay for. I don't want to offend you, but that's what I actually think as a guy with some teaching experience.
Shameless plug: I can develop similar (or better) webapps and now looking for projects. You can hire me. You may find me in Telegram with the same username I use on HN.
> He's been extremely upset about being kicked out of various programming communities after deciding that his new life goal is redefine the stereotype, "Racist Old Uncle Who Totally Knows Kung Fu and Probably Invented All Modern Economics Independently."
According to Contributor's Covenant, this line is offensive enough to expell you from the community that follows it.
The thing is, some people think because they are goodthinkers, they can call oldthinkers whatever doubleplusungood names they like, and still be doubleplusgood. Because they are Forces Of Light, you see, and bellyfeel the goodthink.
Good to see you're here defending that one time he fallciously suggested that Black Americans have and average IQ 20 points below norm. It's clear exactly what you're willing to excuse in your frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
Because Newspeak and thought control and a stubborn refusal to listen to ESR talk about race and gender and how his martial arts are ready to take on any Muslim.
That's a bald-faced lie - I never defended it. But thank you for this illustration of how you and the likes operate. You know that this is false, and that everybody can see it's false - after all, my comments are just above yours for everybody to see and it's obvious I never mentioned that matter and never defended it!
But you rely on the fact that your in-group would let you lie pass because you're attacking an enemy, and your out-group would be afraid to be associated with defending a racist - and if not, you'll just accuse them in racism too. This is not a good faith discussion.
> our frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
That's another bald-faced falsity - I never rejected idea of "basic civility". In fact, if anything, you are the one rejecting "basic civility" right now, by falsely accusing me instead of engaging in good faith and trying to impugn my motives instead of discussing the actual points raised.
Basic civility is great. But basic civility can be done in many ways, and this particular formulation of CoC is not the only one (in fact even having CoC is not the only one). Implying that anybody who opposes particular formulation of CoC and particular process of it's introduction is against "basic civility" is not telling the truth. And the events that surround it prove that the matter in question is way bigger than "basic civility" - there were numerous attempts under the guise of CoC to silence and remove from projects people that disagreed (even in outside fora having nothing to do with the project) with some views of people who often even not members of the community in question.
Hounding people out of working communities for a random comment and throwing around baseless accusations in not the way to do basic civility either. Yet somehow some people think if they say "we're for basic civility" they themselves are free from upholding basic civility. And that basic civility implies they can do anything, but their opponents better watch out.
> Because Newspeak and thought control
Yes, because speech and thought control is what it is all about. And, ultimately, power. You are not allowed to do crimethink, and if you do, you are an unperson. That's what you are trying to do here - you do not argue with ESR's article, you're trying to unperson him. And yes, stubborn refusal to listen and to actually know the position of somebody who you are supposedly criticize is the part of the deal - if you wanted to engage and refute the points, the minimum requirement would be to know what are you actually refuting. But if you want to unperson, the less you know the better.
Welcome to Hacker News, kaneua. I think you'll find I don't mind at all.
Besides, aside from the "racist" and the last 4 words it's an ESR quote. So maybe I'm already in your head. And don't go saying "racist" is an insult, it's just a dictionary definition of some of his more infamous comments.
> Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
You can apply this vague description to the very wide range of things. This "Contributor's Covenant" has a lot of potential to be abused by the ones who want to ban others. You can dig anyone's social media or public comment history and find something that matches this description.
It's a lot of common sense statements that shouldn't even be written with few very vague statements with high abuse potential.
> Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes.
Code of Conduct that you are defending doesn't mention it. It allows to state someone guilty right after first "slip up". Now I can take your comments and present them to the pretty diverse teams you successfully lead and you may be expelled from them due to your heated arguments on HN. But I wouldn't do that. I'm just making an example how exploitable Contrubutor Covenant's policies are.
It doesn't mention automatic sanctions either. Your argument is essentially: If we are OK with some sanctions on some behaviour what will stop someone from enforcing unreasonable and draconic sanctions!
To me this is roughly analogous to: If we let a maintainer decide what code to accept into the Kernel, they can just take malicious or suboptimal code and merge it!
I have seen attempted overreach in using statements made in different contexts against individuals, but overall it seems that these overreach situations were mostly corrected.
In fact a well written CoC should protect against this sort of stuff as well. It should make explicit this defence: This is my personal handle, not associated to my professional career, thus I am not representing my employer or an open source entity when I argue here.
The arguments I've encountered here in this thread are not for better CoCs, or for how we should behave towards each other, but just blanket rejections of CoCs.
The problem is not in the guys who want to misbehave and hate Code of Conduct because of that. Code of conduct and its vaguely written rules gives certain people a power to abuse. As we know from history, if there is a possibility that power can be abused, it will be.
> don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse
I don't pretend that we can't have written norms of decency. But I know for sure that it's not the norms written in "Contributor's Covenant". It should be another covenant.
> You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either.
A couple of month ago I made a teardown[0] of 17 pages long bill that was pushed in Ukraine and had a lot of abuse potential. It was (and is) my main concern. I see it as a major issue of laws, rules, covenants and other legal or semi-legal documents. You may not see it as big issue, but I do. I see this potential abused every single day by corrupt governments of Ukraine and other ex-USSR governments. Vague rulings as in previously mentioned "Contributor's Covenant" are used to prosecute people for stupid reasons and for personal profit by ones who have power.
> Fight the abusers
It's very unlikely that witchhunt victim will return to community. I'd rather have rules better written than someone expelled from the community because someone likes to abuse the power.
I see another reason for Apple to exclude headphone jack from iPhone. Now third-party accessories makers can't bypass Apple's Lightning certification by using headphone jack for data transfer. For example, Square used headphone jack for their card reader.
It's definitely not a waterproofing issue. They have waterproof lightning socket with exposed contacts, therefore they can make 3.5mm one. Apple's rivals — Samsung and Sony both have examples of waterproof phones with 3.5mm jack.
