Neither this post nor the linked site explain what XCancel is/was. Since I wasn't familiar with XCancel, an announcement that it's suspended is not particularly informative.
Apparently XCancel is an instance of Nitter. According to Wikipedia, "Nitter is designed to allow access to X without tracking, advertisements, or the need for an account. It only supports browsing, and cannot be used to sign in or interact with the X community."
And if a button has appeared on the screen in the last half second or so, assume that any attempt to click it was unintentional (unless it appeared due to an explicit action by the user).
Similarly, if a button has recently moved, wait a little while before activating it. (Better yet, arrange for things not to move around as the page is loading.)
“Despite the unification of the Scottish and English royal crowns with the accession of King James VI and I in 1603, and even the union of the kingdoms themselves in 1707, England continued to use Annunciation Style while Scotland used Modern Style. This led to the act being recorded at the time in England as 6 March 1706 (rather than 1707), because in England (unlike Scotland) it fell before the new year began (on 25 March).”
“WHEREAS the legal Supputation of the Year of our Lord in that Part of Great Britain called England, according to which the Year beginneth on the 25th Day of March, hath been found by Experience to be attended with divers Inconveniencies, not only as it differs from the Usage of neighbouring Nations, but also from the legal Method of Computation in that Part of Great Britain called Scotlond, and from the common Usage throughout the whole Kingdom, and thereby frequent Mistakes are occasioned in the Dates of Deeds, and other Writings, and Disputes arise therefrom.”
Although, I think “common usage” in that statement implies that it was common to just do what other countries did, except when filling out legal documents.
Yeah, and why not? There's nothing special about January 1. It's kinda like the international date line: you have to choose somewhere. Although it does seem quite practical to have the year begin on the first day of a month.
"Copyright demands that everyone pretend the value of someone's work is the product of that work, not the labor."
Isn't it?
If you spend ten years writing the Great American Novel, and I spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again, have I created as much value as you have?
If I would have spent ten years writing the Great American Novel, but spent all my time working elsewhere so I could afford to live, then yes.
Why in the hell would anyone spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again? Because they have no intrinsic meaning to provide, or because their life has no meaning to reflect?
We may as well set aside this argument anyway, because it actually isn't relevant. If I accept your premise that the product of work is the only value in labor, then why are there specific categories of product that I can value, and others that I cannot? That's the situation copyright has put us in: if I create the right kind of work, but it's derivative, then that's a violation of someone's copyright. If I create derivative work, but it's the wrong kind, then I can't copyright it. The only kind of work that I can profit from freely is "original", which is a false premise to begin with.
So what is the alternative? Speculation. In a society without copyright, labor must be funded somehow. Rather than promise a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, we would simply fund artists who we believe will create valuable products. We already do this to a moderately significant extent: everyone knows about Patreon and OnlyFans. Most successful creators rely on ad revenue instead of royalties. The problem with this model is that it must compete with copyright holders, who get to monopolize entire swaths of derivative work, and leverage the guarantee of their already-performed work as much easier to sell than speculative investment. Get rid of copyright, and the market simply becomes fair.
Of course no sane person would spend ten years writing "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again". That wasn't the point.
The labor theory of value says that the value of something is determined by the amount of labor that went into creating it. I'd say it's not really so much a theory as a definition of the word "value" -- and I suggest that it's not a particularly useful definition.
If I go to the widget store to buy a widget, the price I'm willing to pay depends on what it's worth to me. The amount of work that went into producing this widget or that widget doesn't affect my decision.
> I'd say it's not really so much a theory as a definition of the word "value"
And that's my point. It's a tautology that demands our participation, while at the same time literally devaluing participation itself.
If you want to understand my position, then you need to step out of that tautological frame, and consider labor as valuable. If you avoid doing that, then you are just avoiding what I'm trying to communicate here.
Strictly speaking it's the ISO C standard. ISO issues each new edition of the standard, and ANSI adopts it.
This was reversed for the first standard, which ANSI published in 1989; ISO adopted it, with editorial changes, in 1990. The term "ANSI C" usually (not entirely correctly) refers to the 1989 standard. If you want to refer to a particular version, it's best to refer to "ISO C" and the date (1990, 1999, 2011, 2023).
The money you pay for a copy of the standard doesn't go to the people who do the work of writing it, who are either volunteers or paid by their employers.
Surprisingly this comes up more then you'd think, for instance in Ancient Rome, tomorrow is two days away so all the dates are off by one from what you'd think it was. They mainly count down and it goes, 5, 4, 3, day before, day.
“Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.” — Stan Kelly-Bootle (first person to obtain a postgraduate degree in computer science)
Except that ++a means increment first and a++ means increment after. And that's well-documented and thoroughly understood. Implying that this is undefined behavior is a cop out and cope. Preposterous and juvenile. If not implemented , it should be. Case closed.
Apparently XCancel is an instance of Nitter. According to Wikipedia, "Nitter is designed to allow access to X without tracking, advertisements, or the need for an account. It only supports browsing, and cannot be used to sign in or interact with the X community."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitter
reply