As many sites do, it may actually invalidate your copyright. You have to put all of the years when you made copyrightable edits to the page. A range like 2010-2025 is only allowed if every single year in that range is included.
This sounds like pseudolegal folklore (in the US at least). Do you have any actual examples where this affected a case?
In the US, you get copyright on your work automatically, with or without a label.
The only thing a label does in the US is defend against "innocent infringement" defenses. But even that defense doesn't absolve the other party from liability; you just can't recover as much.
There is no reason you can't have `(C) 200X-$currentYear Acme Inc` or whatever.
Yet your earlier comment said "200x-$currentYear" not "200x-$modifiedYear" in reply to someone automatically inserting the year. That shows a misunderstanding of copyright AND an intent to mislead when you believe others view it as last updated.
You're better off omitting it entirely in generated web pages. No one cares unless they don't understand copyright, the year shown isn't the current year, and they're already looking to find fault. In other words, for those that treat it as last updated, they must already be struggling to find value when they scroll to your copyright notice, and at that point, after feeling the page looks stale, is seeing the current year going to change their mind?
I'm not sure what the point being made here even is, beyond arguing just to argue?
It does not matter in the US whether you use the current year or last modified date. At worst, omitting a date entirely makes it easier for the other guy to claim "innocent infringement", which only reduces your damages. Show me one US court case from this century where the tail of a date range had a material affect on the outcome.
Moreover, it is an objective fact that people use the current year and the modified year in web pages being written today. And based on the comment that kicked this whole chain off, clearly people are using it as a signal of when the page was changed.
I mean any conservative view points? Immigration, DEI policies, euthanasia, pro life, gender roles, trans sexuality..
Discuss any of these on Twitter would get you banned, until Musk took over. It still does on many left leaning platforms, including Youtube, Twitch, BlueSky, etc.
HN is the only platform I've participated in that tends to allow opposing view points (albeit more left leaning).
If EFF wants to declare that it's now a Left leaning activist entity and doesn't like to engage wit other people, that's fine, I'd rather they just say that instead and be honest.
You can discuss all of those things just fine, both now and then. I have, and never got banned for any of them.
The problem is online/MAGA conservatives don't want to discuss those things. I've never talked to any online conservative who had anything new or interesting to say about any of those things.
No ‘a man can never be a woman’ is a fact and mainstream view. Disliking your sex isn't an innate characteristic and you have no right to force others to believe your illusion or participate in your gender performance.
More to the point you just claimed discussion of these matters wasn’t ever suppressed and then attempted to suppress discussion of them by claiming this was bigoted.
People with gender dysphoria exist. THey are not marginalised: they have the same rights as every other person has. It is not bigotry to not participate in their gender performance, because gender performance is not an innate characteristic, as already mentioned to you in the comment you're replying to.
Political ideas don't come in isolation. You cited some relatively benign aspects of conservatism. But those are symptoms of a deeper process, and that same process brings both the benign aspects and the malignant aspects. People's stances on these issues aren't independent. They are correlated by some common factor that causes all of them, and we're not quite sure what that is and it may have evolutionary underpinnings. We call the common factor conservatism (or progressivism, when it's flipped the opposite way).
A lot of it is based in social position / class. People that benefit from the existing ways unsurprisingly want them to continue. People that do not benefit, would like to see it changed.
Conservatives are a minority because we live in an unequal society, so necessarily the people benefiting and wanting that to continue are that same minority. There are a relatively small number of people that are confused about their class position or are aspirational and confuse their current position with actually achieving a social leap.
Of course, then there are personality types that metabolize this in different ways, but the basis of politics is materialism. A lot of money and words are deployed to obscure this, which has been known for over a hundred years. I was reading Thucydides (440 BCE) and in the first few pages he grounds significant political events in materialist forces.
You have to commit the money upfront into not just the network, but the link on the network.
Basically a Lightning connection (or channel) is two parties locking up some money (in any amount and any split they want) and then repeatedly re-agreeing on what the current split is. At any time they can close the channel which unlocks the money according to the latest agreed split. It's cleverly set up so that if either one cheats (by trying to finalize an earlier split), the other one gets to overrule it and keep 100%.
The most money that can be transferred is when the split is 100% to one party. Then you need to finalize it and create a new one.
It's not as magical as its proponents think. It is better than the base protocol in some cases - if you have connections and money. The sender having to lock up actual money in advance, in the maximum amount they can foresee sending, is a real buzz killer for the sender. And if the sender is some central relay - if you want to receive via a central relay and not peer to peer - you'll have to convince them why they should do that. Usually by actually prepaying, in real bitcoins, a few percent of what you want them to lock. Which is more than the transaction fee for a nontrivial base layer transaction.
To date, my own full verification node rejects all lightning/segwit blocks, until a concensus level of 6+ is reached. I think both were BIP errors, but rejoined the main concensus network ~2018.
Also participated in the O.G. bitcoin hardfork, back in August 2017, supporting the larger_blocks camp (but now mainchain, only).
It also takes a week to get your money when finalizing the channel. This is because the other party has a week to post on the blockchain a proof that you cheated. Only if no cheating proof is posted can you actually finalize the channel.
NYT just doesn't care about the consequences of what they publish. A few years ago they put out a piece about how a big group of people were constantly raping another big group of people, that had significant geopolitical implications, it turned out to be entirely made up and they never apologised.
This is all about how the housing market is structured, not the amount worked. If people worked even more, house prices would rise further to cancel it.
Is this actually a problem? We all know the average white collar worker doesn't actually work for 40 hours despite being at the office. The average - everywhere - is more like the equivalent of 20 hours of solid focused work per week day.
Does more white collar work beyond a threshold produce more value, anyway? Sometimes yes but often no.
reply