Hard agree. On the flipside, devs also tend to overestimate the cost of already-implemented abstractions that they haven’t yet internalized, leading to complaints and lengthy refactors when they could have just spent the time to learn the abstraction…
OK, but that is just one product. I agree that some companies are overselling e-ink in a way that is scammy, but that doesn’t mean the whole market is a scam. Plenty of products eg. Inkplate are upfront about what you’re getting, and I think it looks pretty good, albeit not nearly as good as a proper print.
Awesome! A few years ago I made some physical Penrose tiles out of wood & magnets, this will help me come up with some new designs to make with them :)
This is a strange legal take. There is nothing about music that makes it special in the eyes of the law, it is speech like any other, subject to the same protections and restrictions as publishing a book. If you release an album containing nuclear secrets on Spotify, an injunction, removal and arrest will follow.
We don't actually know that this is true, because if you don't take the law literally like a lot of coders do, then that scenario isn't known to be possible because the format is a more explicit from of protected speech
Because “believing in crypto” (for most people) doesn’t just mean believing that the math works. It means believing that we can build a sociopolitical ecosystem that allows crypto to be a useful part of our lives in the future. To many, SBF seemed like an important visionary working to make that future happen. The fact that he turned out to be YET ANOTHER scumbag scam artist, fraudulently trading customer deposits like all the rest, will incinerate any goodwill the crypto community was starting to build in the eyes of regulators, politicians and the non-tech-world at large.
Truly awesome work. There is a weird second-order kind of beauty here, in that the act of classifying and visualizing the surprisingly-complex emergent behavior of simple CAs is, itself, a meta simple-CA-like algorithm that has managed to produce an astonishingly beautiful and complex result. The fact that this structure is just kinda “baked into” the universe/math and produced basically ex nihilo is mind-blowing.
Whether or not the game is actually inspired by IKEA (clearly it is) has no legal bearing on the matter. What matters is confusion. The factors include:
"(1) similarity of the marks; (2) strength of plaintiff's mark; (3) sophistication of consumers when making a purchase; (4) intent of defendant in adopting the mark; (5) evidence of actual confusion (or lack thereof); (6) similarity of marketing and advertising channels; (7) extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (8) product similarity; identity/function/use; and (9) other factors suggesting that consumers might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in defendants market, or expect the prior owner is likely to expand into defendant’s market."
While true that IKEA has a strong brand and the in-game store uses very similar branding, they lose on every other factor. It is very unlikely that anyone will reasonably wonder if the game is an IKEA product, or officially sponsored by IKEA. Unfortunately it sounds like the developer doesn't have the resources to defend it, so they'll likely be bullied into changing it unless they get some pro bono legal counsel.
Can we not make this the new low-effort way of saying "this doesn't make sense to me"? I've seen it a lot lately and it's at least as insulting as a regular old ad hominem attack.
FWIW it made perfect sense to me. It's a fun and thought-provoking analogy.
