my subscriptions
dnew commented on a post in r/technology
Snuffy1717 2 points

Easy enough to cover tracks and make it difficult to prove they were your own hits though

dnew 1 point

But then that is fraud.

knaws 11 points

It's not clear how exactly they ended up profiting on this. It says one of the playlist "had 467 songs by virtually unknown artists," like the artists used were inconsequential.

Did the Bulgarians actually have the rights to all 467 of those songs in order to be the ones collecting the royalties? Did they cut deals with whoever did own the rights?

dnew 4 points

It sounds like they recorded 467 songs of their own and published them on spotify. I.e., they're virtually unknown, as in unknown to anyone other than the people making the playlist.

dnew commented on a post in r/scifi
ghostfragment92 22 points

Its an R-rated movie so I doubt 8 year olds would even care all that much. The nature of the adult audience is shrinking though as they become more drawn to what's on Netflix, which makes the move to have the film premiere there internationally make sense. And in the case of Blade Runner, it was a mistake to do a big budget sequel to a movie that bombed in theatres the first time, that only a niche audience is truly passionate about (it was very beautiful though).

dnew 14 points

I saw an interesting analysis of why 2049 bombed, including things like "the small set of people who liked the original have grown up and have kids now, so a longer movie you can't take the kids to means more expensive baby sitting" and a host of other logic like that.

Average_Giant 1 point

I waited until it came out on DVD to see it. I liked it, would probably watch it again too, but it was disappointing. Nothing really new happened. I told my friend it was just as good/disappointing as the new My Bloody Valentine album.

dnew 1 point

It really wasn't a small-screen movie. :-)

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/savedyouaclick
dnew -7 points

Last time I was at Disney, it was already shut down, replaced by something somewhat like a video game arcade. Unless they have one in each of the -Land and -Park, and they shut down only one of them?

micialicia 2 points

You’re thinking of Innoventions. WDW still has the Carousel of Progress in the Magic Kingdom.

dnew 2 points

Thanks! I guess I got the two locations confused last time I went and never found CoP. It's good to hear they upgraded it, tho. Having it end at "and I can use my computer to store recipes" was pretty cringe-worthy.

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/blenderhelp
dnew 1 point

I would guess you would use a curve object? Is this a trick question?

Make a curve, convert it to a mesh, fill in the faces?

Axelle36 1 point

This is not a joke .w. I really don't know what I'm doing xD I'm a beginner I tried a curve and just couldn't get it to line up right can I increase the number of points to adjust the curve?

dnew 2 points

So here's a tutorial on curves.

That said, I'd watch that entire channel. He doesn't really do specific project tutorials other than simple stuff (snowman, for example). But he is more of a teacher than an artist, so what he has is a lesson plan and practice, so he covers things in a logical order and doesn't spend 5 minutes screwing around tweaking details that you won't have in your project anyway.

dnew commented on a post in r/pics
TheMeisterOfThings 9 points

German has three. Look how progressive it is!

dnew 2 points

And I understand that in Swahili, the conjugations are for "live", "dead", and "in between", rather than based on sex.

(That said, that pretty much sums up what I retain from my abortive attempt to learn Swahili a few decades ago.)

dnew commented on a post in r/blenderhelp
dnew 1 point

I would imagine this is the sort of thing stored in the python data structures and easily accessible from there. You could write a script that deselects any selected vertex with 4 or fewer bones influencing it. Then you could select all verts, run the script, and the problematic ones would still be selected.

Just as a hint to get you started.

dnew commented on a post in r/pics
Osbios 657 points

Oh don't stress yourself to much over that! Like seriously stop stressing yourself! You could be genetically prone to have thin vessels in the brain and get an aneurysm! Or over the long term the heart will take damage from to much stress!

dnew 1 point

Altho if you do feel alarmed, try to hold on to that feeling.

dnew commented on a post in r/printSF
StrikitRich1 2 points

Honestly, I think Brin peaked with Startide Rising. That being said, I'm about to start his Kiln People after watching RKM's Altered Carbon on Netflix. Interesting how both those books came out within a month of each other and I have that trilogy on deck, too.

dnew 5 points

about to start his Kiln People

Long, but totally worthwhile, especially if you enjoy the whole "what is consciousness" question.

dnew commented on a post in r/pics
craftmacaro 1 point

So, rationally, I should change my mind about my opinion that the main reason American gun owners buy guns is not with the idea of fighting a tyrannical government. Or rationally I should change my opinion that the blitzkrieg which wasn't stopped by a standing army would have been stopped if more untrained civilians had small arms? It seems to me, rationally, you are presenting a very different scenario, where an interned and very concentrated mass of people put up a fight because they obtained weapons and fought a policing force they vastly outnumbered and wasn't expecting armed resistance and could have very easily been bombed by an invading army. I don't deny that giving weapons to inmates of a prison would change the balance of power, but I do not think that small arms are the primary dissuasion from tipping the US government into despotism.

dnew -1 points

So, rationally

No. Again, both of those are straw men. You asked if having an AR-15 would protect you against an army. The answer is, yes, maybe, as similar things have happened in the past. Or like this:

Honestly, you act like we didn't lose the Viet Nam war or something.

I do not think that small arms are the primary dissuasion from tipping the US government into despotism

That's a very different statement from "small arms would not prevent the army from staging a coup."

You also have to remember that the USA is unlikely to mass-murder their own citizens, and our army swears allegiance to the country, not the leaders, which means that many in the army are unlikely to bomb their own cities, regardless of what elected leaders tell them to do.

An ex-soldier doesn't have to defeat the army with a pistol. He only has to defeat the tank driver with a pistol and take the tank from him.

craftmacaro 4 points

Stop calling everything straw men... using logical fallacy callouts doesn't make you seem smarter and you do a fine job of making points without resorting to what's become the lowest common denominator of any online debate. It doesn't convince anyone of your point or dissuade their point. The original point I was making was making fun of the "what aboutism" argument of Hitler's policy was to make guns illegal... so if the US does the same then despotism. Also the exact point you mention is one that maybe I didn't bring up in the comment you saw but is exactly the reason I think the personal gun argument against tyranny is stupid. The military is made of people, American people, who don't want to kill their neighbors and friends. I don't think we disagree on as much as you do. But running around someone calling out logical fallacies really doesn't leave either party with any sense of a reason to change their opinion. You bring in the Vietnam war, a straw hat by you, and it's supposed to prove the efficacy of a small force fighting a better supplied army. But that isn't comparable. The US populace lives in the houses, cities, and conditions the US army grew up in. No home field advantage, no homesickness or draft if it was a tyrannical military takeover. Guns wouldn't save us, the fact that there is no reason, economic, or social, that is close to propagating an American civil war that would make middle class gun owners risk their routine lives for the rigors of war or bring American soldiers to kill civilians even when ordered to is our real defense.

dnew 1 point

You're changing the argument I was making.

You're arguing here that there's no reason to own guns in today's political environment. I'm disputing the previous argument that owning small arms would not help in the event of a modern tyrannical government.

I bring up things like the war games and Viet Nam to show it isn't obvious that superior fire power always wins a skirmish where you're not trying to simply murder everyone. Of course a hunting rifle isn't going to protect you from the city being bombed to rubble. If you want to argue that small arms wouldn't protect you from a rogue USA attacking citizens, you need to explain why. If you're going to argue that we don't need firearms for that at all, that's a different question than what I was addressing.

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/pics
sumpuran 5 points

3 out of 10 American adults own a gun. 3% of the population owns half of all the civilian guns in the country. Most gun owners own more than one gun. Gun owners tend to be white males living in rural areas. [S]

This is in the news because it was being photographed and it was in presence of a police officer. How much brandishing and intimidation happens without any consequences, without it being documented, without any charges filed?

dnew 1 point

How much brandishing and intimidation happens without any consequences, without it being documented, without any charges filed?

I don't know. But I expect if 100 million people were doing this, we'd hear about it more often. Let's say 99% are responsible, since you asked percentages and not fractions of a percent. Do you think you wouldn't notice a million people being irresponsible? Do you think that it's a lot higher or a lot lower than the number of irresponsible drivers that suffer no consequences or documentation or charges filed?

sumpuran 11 points

Do you think you wouldn't notice a million people being irresponsible?

Yes, and we do. 73,000 injuries from gunshot wounds, per year. 33,000 deaths from gunshot wounds, per year. Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. Those numbers are staggering.

And let’s not even talk about the school shootings, mass shootings, gangs, etc. There are a lot of people who should not have guns.

dnew 1 point

Those numbers are staggering.

No they aren't. You're telling me 100 million people own firearms, and over the course of 43 years, roughly 1.5% of those people have killed someone with the firearm. Including bunches of them (over half?) are suicides, which are not a misuse or irresponsible use of a firearm.

In contrast, how many adults own automobiles? Certainly no more than thrice as many. And yet there's more deaths every year and twice as many injuries every year as there have been since 1968 from firearms. Let's say every American owned a car, and it's still almost as many injuries per year as we have had from guns since 1968. So it seems there's an even more staggering number of irresponsible drivers, yes? But we're not holding candlelight vigils because some drunk drove through a bus stop. We don't have mothers screaming "Take action now!"

When you have 100,000,000 people doing anything, there's going to be problems even if everyone is careful and responsible. Let alone the fact that you are counting people who are being careful and responsible, and killing or injuring people in a careful and responsible way.

I agree that many have guns now that shouldn't, just like there are many drunk drivers who haven't been caught yet. But the problem is you often can't tell until after the fact that they shouldn't.

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/technology
Belvik 1 point

Well they technically aren't preempting federal law. They are just putting down guidelines that ISPs have to follow to get government contracts. If the ISP doesn't want government contracts, then they don't have to change anything.

dnew 1 point

they technically aren't preempting federal law

My understanding is that some are and some aren't. Those that aren't are using the economic incentive exactly because they can't preempt federal law.

StonerSteveCDXX 8 points

The fcc said states are not allowed to enforce net neutrality thereby taking rights away from the state, to get around this the state has said in order to get any government contracts they must follow net neutrality.

This is more of an economic-pressure work around to say fuck off to the fcc than it is a net neutrality law passed by the states, the point is the fcc shouldnt have the power to tell the states what laws they can and cannot pass.

dnew 1 point

the point is the fcc shouldnt have the power to tell the states what laws they can and cannot pass

Technically, yeah, it does. It's in the constitution that federal laws preempt state laws. State laws cannot, for example, say "there's no copyright in this state."

That said, the FCC screwed it because they said "we don't have the authority to regulate ISPs." So there shouldn't be any question that states are preempting federal laws.

dnew commented on a post in r/oddlysatisfying
c_money_boi 27 points

Everyone has the same reaction of placing their hands on their heads lmao

dnew 1 point
datpuppybelly 42 points

Even the guy on the far right clasps his head in the same way. Empathy even in a dominoes tournament.

dnew 1 point

I asked my foreign-born coworkers about exactly that. Seems it's pretty universal, even in the Slavic countries and in China. I guess it might make sense that recognizing "there's something going horribly wrong that we can't do anything to prevent" as a universal gesture would be a survival gene.

dnew commented on a post in r/blenderhelp
dnew 1 point

This guy, and his other channels, does advanced tutorials including stuff like planning out your file structures, designing your scene, etc.

He also has a course on sculpting just out, a course on creating a movie scene, etc.

dnew commented on a post in r/technology
attomsk 2 points

completely depends on the orbit

dnew 1 point
FruitPirate 5 points

Starlink satellites will orbit much closer to the ground compared to existing satellite internet. Latencies will be an order of magnitude lower.

Ars Technica recent news article

The demonstration satellites will orbit at 511km, although the operational satellites are planned to orbit at altitudes ranging from 1,110km to 1,325km. By contrast, the existing HughesNet satellite network has an altitude of about 35,400km, making for a much longer round-trip time than ground-based networks.

dnew 1 point

That's closer to 10ms round trip, if you only count the in-the-air time. That's not bad.

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/technology
the-incredible-ape 52 points

No, it's because the corruption is not illegal and therefore isn't counted, probably. Is there any law against Pai working for Verizon and then directly going to enforce / create rules for Verizon to follow? No, no there is not. And that's the way they like it.

dnew 20 points

Here's the thing. In general, in the USA, the top levels of government (and corporations) seem to be much more corrupt than the lower levels. It's expected that politicians and such are getting paid by corporations to harm the public for personal gain. But the cops don't take bribes, much. The DMV doesn't hold up your license until you bring them a case of cigarettes. The post office doesn't hit you up for money every month lest they lose important documents. The IRS doesn't audit you to shake you down.

Most of the individuals in the government are pretty dedicated and honest. It's only the people in the news that are corrupt.

dnew commented on a post in r/technology
Jmoney1997 -1 points

You just explained it yourself. If monopolies are outlawed then the ones that exsist by logic must be ones that the government allows. Corrupt government officials work with these companies to create regulation that restrict smaller companies from rising up and competing thus protecting their monopoly.

dnew 1 point

must be ones that the government allows

Yep. The government allows some monopolies. The government certainly doesn't create all monopolies.

PanqueNhoc 0 points

There are rich people and investors from other backgrounds out there, it doesn't haves to start in a garage.

Damm. You couldn't possibly be more embarassingly wrong here. TCP/IP is an open protocol of communications developed by the US DoD, not a network or a company. That's like saying the alphabet and awnsering the phone with "hello" are examples of a natural monopoly Lmao.

I think monopolies can't form because without government enforcement of those the only way be a "monopoly" is literally competing with ultra low prices and a good product. I don't think that being the cheapest and best popcorn seller in town with a secret recipe for 5 years makes me a monopoly, that just means I was by far the best competitor. If I try to abuse this position by raising prices and/or lowering product quality I will eventually lose costumers to the competition. I know the example is silly and there aren't startup costs here, but then it's back to my first point.

dnew 1 point


He doesn't really make arguments. He certainly doesn't make any universal arguments, but arguments against the form "utilities are not natural monopolies." (Which is not what we're arguing here.) He also doesn't use any examples from after global enterprises could be started with virtually no investment, i.e., the information age.

Supplying cable TV service is a natural monopoly for a given neighborhood. Once the people on either side of you have cable TV service, it's far cheaper for that provider to hook you up than it is for a different provider to run cables to your house. Hence, natural monopolies exist, as I can point to one, and thus they must not be mythological. The same holds true for many utilities.

TCP/IP is an open protocol of communications developed by the US DoD, not a network or a company

Yes. It's an analogy for how a company with network effects can establish a monopoly. Why is there no competition to that protocol?

without government enforcement of those the only way be a "monopoly" is literally competing with ultra low prices and a good product

You're mistaken. Your monopoly company could have the benefit of a network effect, such as MS Windows having the network effect of having lots of apps (and MS Office) available. Why do you think Open Office was sponsored? Why do you think Windows Phone can't break into the market? Hint: it's not because they make bad phones.

A company could have a monopoly in the same way Microsoft did, by using the profits from one business to undercut competitors in another difference.

Once AT&T was established as a monopoly, it required government intervention to insist that they provide access to their network-effect-protected hardware at similar costs to their own to disestablish the network. Otherwise, when 90% of everyone is using one phone company, and another wants to start providing service, if the big phone company disallows an interconnect, the small phone company isn't going to get any customers.

Load more comments
dnew commented on a post in r/pics
dnew 3 points
NeedMoneyForVagina 7 points

If you took a picture of a building & you couldn't see the people inside or on the other side of the building. You wouldn't consider them to be in the picture, because they aren't visible. Yeah, they were there, but they aren't in the picture. If you take a picture of a wall & you know your friend is on the other side, it's still just a picture of a wall. So why should we consider the people on the far side of the Earth to be in the picture if they're blocked by the Earth itself?

dnew 1 point

Normally, the description is "every human being except the photographer is in the frame of the photo." :-)

view more:
next ›
225,399 Karma
247 Post Karma
225,152 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About dnew

  • Reddit Birthday

    April 26, 2009

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up