Catholic Church's records on early popes are often surprisingly bad, particularly in antipope-heavy eras. There are a _number_ of popes where the detail is pretty vague. Use of damnatio memoriae also confuses the issue, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Formosus#Legacy
eh not really, we NOW have quite good records on most popes except for the first few ones that we get just in a list from St Irenaeus (for example from St Linus - the guy immediately after St Peter - we get almost nothing)
but about the middle age popes we know quite a lot NOW. But it used to be different.
This is the most hilarious JS fail I've ever seen. The entire article renders properly, all the text and styling, then the entire screen is replaced by
"Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information)."
It's easy enough to fix, just hammer the refresh button to prevent JS from running.
It's such a dream state of JavaScript, that people spent countless of time trying to structure these new web applications in a way so that when one function fails for one button or whatever, it doesn't break the entire client-side view, because that'd be horrible.
So what did the frameworks do? Of course wrap the entire application in one big try/catch, that then changes the entire page as soon as there is any error, instead of presenting users with the information that did load properly. Talk about undoing what the platform and language gives you for free...
> This is a poor implementation not a framework problem lol.
I've seen literally pixel-identical error messages taking over the entire screen when there is a JS error, in exactly that way, across countless of websites. If it's not a framework, it's a library in wide use, because tons of websites have exactly the same issue.
Likewise, I will not even consider paying for games (or music) that don't have an unencumbered download option. If the game is open source I will usually buy it without even thinking very hard about whether I'll play it.
How are the game companies supposed to determine that it adds negative value? Speak to the alternative universe where the same game wasn't bundled with it?
>How are the game companies supposed to determine that it adds negative value?
Look at their own/industry data of comparable games that have been published with or without protection. I worked in the game industry, for AAA studios it's a no brainer. Denuvo for a big title that sells millions of copies runs about high six or low seven figures in costs, so about 1-3% of the budget, whereas preventing piracy in the first 12 weeks meant something like a 10-20% increase (tens of millions) in sales.
Dynamic pricing based on personal data is not even a market, let alone a perfectly competitive one. Temporal dynamic pricing can mean almost anything, so might be ok (early bird lunch deal) or pure evil (bottled water now costs $100 because there is lead in the tap water).
The point of pricing water to that level is that it would induce other people who have access to bottled water to bring it to that market, as is desirable
No, the point is to selfishly profit-maximise. I'm not trying to be difficult in saying that. The thing you describe is not the intent, it's the hypothetical effect. It may or may not do that (I don't think it typically does, take toilet paper during COVID for example).
Yes, the point for the individual setting that price is to selfishly profit-maximize. The point for us accepting a system that does this is because it signals to other water-bottle-holders that there is a dire need nearby and pays them to meet that need.
I don't think the example of a meme-driven pseudo-shortage of a paper good during a once in a lifetime global pandemic (causing both supply and demand shocks and significant information problems) is a very good point.
You assume that other people can simply bring bottled water to market & compete with discoverability and access to customers with established players?
Or is your point that all people in a market with leaded water should be paying $100 for pure water because it is inherently worth that much per the market.
No, I assume that if anyone can bring bottled water to market, they should have a strong incentive to do so whenever there is a strong need for more of it.
But they (everybody) can't. Bringing bottled water to market requires a clean source, rights to acquire it, and a manufacture & distribution network. Plus retailers. As well, these things are often blocked to newcomers because of existing deals with big players.
> But they (everybody) can't. Bringing bottled water to market requires a clean source, rights to acquire it, and a manufacture & distribution network. Plus retailers.
I didn't say everybody. I said anybody who can.
What you describe is exactly why it's important to have an incentive for the people who do have those resources to employ them towards getting bottled water to this lead-poisoned region...
My interpretation would be that cars are necessary to live in places where urban design assumes that we'll use cars to get around. Many cities are designed this way.
Similarly, phones are required now for some activities, like online banking. First it was an option, then it became the norm.
Should not, true, but in the case of many websites the reality is that allowing JS means you lost your privacy. Just like one cannot allow webgl and canvas by default any longer.
Thanks to all the web devs who helped creating this web dystopia.
Yes, my point is that this does not mean it is an "opt in checkbox". I appreciate that it allows people to be nasty, it just isn't a "please be nasty" toggle.
The person I have responded wrote the "should have" construction without giving any proofs why is it so. Maybe in the world of pink ponies everyone should have a free bread on the breakfast, but some things might be unintuitive in the our one.
You can't go out in public naked and just ask everyone to look away. If you want someone you don't trust to run unvetted general purpose code on your machine you have to accept that you are trading away some privacy. You can sandbox them (wear cloths) but that doesn't give you strict privacy.
I do wear clothes (all JS code runs in a sandbox).
This is a bit like saying "you should lock the door to your house" and therefore refusing to prosecute someone who steals from a house with a broken window frame. I did lock my door, and it's still a crime regardless!
I did not mean to excuse Firefox leaking this identifier or suggest we shouldn't strive to be as secure as possible. I just took issue with the blanket statement "should not have to choose". As well as making the Browser as secure as possible we also have to chose to limit functionality.
100% we should ensure that Browser's restrict fingerprinting as much as posible. I certainly set my Firefox to have many inconviniencies to reduce the fingerprint. I am just saying this is an engineering compromise and the tradeoff will be different for different people. Wishing we can have our cake and eat it dosn't help; you do have to choose between privacy and functionality.
reply