This is an honest question. Why does a blog need to shutdown? If they moderate every comment before it is published on the website, what's the problem? I ask because I've got a UK-based blog too. It has got comments feature. Wouldn't enabling moderation for all comments be enough?
No, you still need to do things like write an impact assessment etc and you're still on the hook for "illegal" comments where you aren't a judge and have to arbitrarily decide what might be when you have no legal expertise whatsoever.
If I'm moderating all comments before they're published on the website, what's the problem? I mean, I've got a simple tech blog. I'm not going to publish random drive-by comments. Only comments that relate to my blog are ever going to be published. Am I making sense?
Does anyone in your blog comments ever discuss circumvention of DRM?
That's a criminal offence in the UK (two year prison sentence in some circumstances). Do you have a good feeling for what might count as incitement in those circumstances?
I have to say that this thread is very frustrating to read. I see @lazide is engaging with you in good faith and providing high effort, thoughtful answers. There's a lot of statistics and factors involved in a discussion like this. So I won't say @lazide's analysis is correct or flawed. But this is a good topic where a good discussion can be had and @lazide is holding up their end of the bargain.
But every response of yours is dismissive. And this makes this thread frustrating to read. You answer every reply with more questions and a tone of dismissal. If you know so much about this area, why don't you begin sharing some facts and enlighten us? Dismissing your co-commenter and answering their replies with more questions is not educating anyone of anything!
It would help if instead of answering a comment with questions, you share what you know. So how much is the cost of wiring, installation, programming and making greenhouses in the span of a year? How much copper is needed per capita? What do you know? Tell us!
> It would help if instead of answering a comment with questions, you share what you know. So how much is the cost of wiring, installation, programming and making greenhouses in the span of a year? How much copper is needed per capita? What do you know? Tell us!basic led grow lights for agriculture
[Trivial googling shows you $750K to $1.25 million Euros per hectare](https://www.floraldaily.com/article/9574650/half-fewer-order...). At 400 square meters of greenhouse to feed a single human being (a reasonable estimate, lower bound being 300 under super intensive conditions with experienced growers), that's at least $30K _per person_ under the existing constraints of the industry just for an industry-standard greenhouse. You could of course lower construction costs and do the bare minimum, at the cost of a dramatic decrease in yield.
That of course assumes materials and fabrication is abundantly available and wouldn't see an impossibly high rise in materials and service costs if suddenly the entire world were to demand greenhouse construction with the attending demands in electricity distribution, power generation, and the sudden need to turn most of society into a sort of high-tech agrarian population, something that just doesn't happen in a year.
So you’re saying that if everyone would flat out starve to death, they would not, or could not, spend that amount of time/money/energy to not starve to death?
I’m not saying it would be pretty, or that people wouldn’t die.
I’m just saying that actually doesn’t sound impossible.
Far more effort than that was expended per person in WW2, and that wasn’t nearly as severe of an existential threat.
Hell, in this case it would be an obvious/visible, sudden, external, non-human existential threat, so would be ideal for uniting humanity on somewhat common grounds.
I doubt there is any point in debating a complex topic with someone whose only responses are dismissive questions and "5 minutes of Googling"! I appreciate your thoughtful comments in this thread though!
If this is how you get your information, I doubt what you say can be taken seriously. Not to mention that the reference you quote seems like a random website nobody has ever heard of!
This was a very interesting topic and a serious discussion about this topic would at least include references to bonafide surveys or well established trustworthy sources. To find them takes much more than 5 minutes of Googling. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, so I requested that if you know something, you share it here with us.
Clearly you do not have the time to do your research either since all you have to present us is "5 minutes of Googling" that turns up a random source!
But nobody in this thread thought it (simplifying assumptions) stopped. You seem to be making an assumption that someone thought that and then posting long explanations that nobody asked for. I read the "P.S." of grand-grand-parent comment as good humor. Nothing there implied that they really thought that simplifying assumptions would/should stop.
Imagine a world where every bit of humor is interpreted literally and then refuted pedantically! What kind of a world would that be?
I looked at the cited examples but none of them look like “plagiarism”. They look like ordinary sentences and if I had to write them myself, I would come up with similar wordings too!
Like for example take the description of “behavior trees”. There are only so many ways you can describe a behavior tree. If 10 papers out there introduce behavior tree by describing it, some of those descriptions are bound to look very similar.
This is like arguing that my paper on prime numbers is plagiarised because the definition of prime numbers in my paper looks very similar to the definition of prime numbers in another paper.
With the amount of literature on these subjects out there, it is natural that some sentences I write would end up looking similar to some sentences in thousands of literature out there.
Do you have any reason to disagree with the final sentence:
"Andreas has claimed that the text that is identical in his Phd to uncited sources is just composed of “common phrases”, this is highly unlikely to be the case since the indentical text is usually more than 9 consecutive words and is only found in one other earlier source from which there are usually multiple 9+ consecutive-word identical phrases in his Phd."
Do you have evidence that it's actually "relatively common" that sentences with many, many more than 9 words are identical?
If you take something as ordinary as “behavior tree”, 9+ consecutive words don’t surprise me. Many definitions across literature often look very alike.
> behavior trees, the system will often travel down the root of
How else would you write this? To be honest, I’d have written it exactly this way too. I’m sure many other researchers would write it this way too.
I mean this is such a weak example. If there were 9+ consecutive words matching each other in more meatier parts of the paper, then I would be very suspicious.
But the examples cited are about trivial sentences describing ordinary stuff where two people might describe the same thing in exactly the same way because there are only very few ways to describe them.
It seems like someone has a axe to grind here, maybe they didn't get a professorship and see this guy and think the next best thing is to torpedo his chances.
If the thesis reworks original works and cites it then that's perfectly legitimate I would think.
If it happens 50+ times in a single text you would also hit the jackpot with a single lottery ticket but I get your point and it feels like we need a better working definition of plagiarism. Also keep in mind that plagiarism is just a subset of academic fraud and the part that is easily detected.
And domains can be lost too. Missed payments, error in administrating the domain, government takedowns. Many failure modes exist for domains too. Nothing in the digital world is permanent! That's why I find it disturbing that so much of our digital identities are tied to our email addresses.
Do you or someone else know if Fastmail is any better? If I buy a Fastmail email, what protections exist that would stop them from accidentally or arbitrarily locking me out?
And note, I don't live in the US. I'm wondering about this question from a global perspective.
How does that work in practice? I mean I may keep my data at multiple places. But my government, my hospitals, my utility accounts, they all want my email address to send me OTPs, password reset links and such things that are necessary to prove my digital identity.
How do I spread this risk and make it manageable? I have to give them some email address and I fear losing access to my email. And yes, I can lose my email address even if I have my email on my own domain. There are many failure modes for losing domain names. So how do I manage this risk?
I have secondary account recovery for everything and secondary accounts for everything. If email one doesn't work, my phone and second email does. Where OP went wrong was not updating their phone number when it changed. There's not a lot to be done at that point.
Just looking at emails: your choices are to trust someone else's domain -- likely gmail -- or own your own domain + some kind of forwarding or 3rd party mail service.
For gmail, you risk account lockout like OP is experiencing. You can mitigate the risk with more recovery options at account.google.com like backup codes.
For a service other than gmail, I think the risks of lockout without customer service to help might possibly be less., especially if its paid like fastmail. If you do pay you have the risk of not wanting to pay anymore, or forgetting to pay, and if you don't pay you also have the risk of the service going away. I suppose the service going away is ok.
I for one am pretty confident google will keep gmail running as well as possible, so I see other services as a bit more risk there.
If you own the domain, you have paid for it and risk someone stealing it or grabbing it when you forget to pay. You can mitigate the risk by choosing a registrar with good security, paying for a longer term or not forgetting, eg a quarterly reminder to review your domain names. You also need to be able to access your registrar account. You can choose registrars you get other services from, like AWS Route 53 if you use amazon for anything, or Cloudflare for VPN, and mitigate the risk of non-payment or non-access because access and payment will be done more frequently.
Using your own domain is also more moving parts, decisions, setup, etc. So you risk more things going wrong or fatigue over all the maintenance taking over. How you weigh the monetary and complexity cost of using a domain name for email compared to the upside of control, having a personal site at your own name, etc.
I'm sorry this happened. This is my digital nightmare scenario!
It is disturbing how much of our digital and physical life (utility accounts, medical insurance, etc. etc.) are tied to email addresses and these email addresses are something we can never ever truly own. If you are locked out of email, you are also locked out of at least half a dozen critical portals that send password resets, OTPs and all kinds of authentication fragments to your email address!
Most email addresses are on somebody else's domain and they can lock you out anytime. Even if you manage to set up your domain name, you are still renting the domain name from someone. One missed payment or you somehow mess up the admin work of your domain name or you lose your domain name for any reason (yes, it happens!), nobody in the world can reach your email address!
How did this happen? Weren't the old days of snailmail better? You could own a house or you could rent a house and get actual physical letters at your home. If you moved houses, you could have the new tenants of the old house forward mail to your new one until everything settled down.
Email addresses seem like good secondary mode of communication but I find it disturbing that all around the world, email addresses have become the primary mode of communcation and sometimes the only mode of communication!
Does anyone else feel extremely uncomfortable that so much of our critical digital and physical lives are tied to email addresses, things that we can never truly own and can be taken away from us anytime?
> While you dont own a domain name, you have legals means to get it back.
Can you or someone else share more about this? Do these laws work across countries? Can someone in Bhutan exercise their legal right to get back their .com or .org domain name? Must someone in Bhutan always buy a .bt domain name? I'd like to learn more about how the legal framework works and protects the customer from loss of their domain names?
Provided you're in the same coutry as the registrar and using your passport for registration. And you don't miss your pay date (they usually don't allow to pre-pay for many years in advance). And payment remains available (I once had to resort to paying with cash(!) because of banking troubles). And registrar doesn't get bought, go bankrupt, etc. After losing an important domain I can't say it's THE way to go. Also, self-hosting e-mail is a nightmare. Not only because of ridiculously complex software, but also need to be trusted, which, in e-mail world, is hard as...
How do you actually get it back? Friend of mine has a portfolio website in their name they’ve been maintaining for well over a decade, they missed one payment and some scoundrel bought it up and is demanding thousands of bucks for it.
