As a default judgement because they don’t know who runs it lol.

If it uses tags correctly you can just filter in and out what you want to see, then bunch by other common tags or whatever.

I have not reached the point of finding the right book hosting to properly self host my large collection of books, so I can’t really give a suggestion for a good browsing experience, but just generally speaking tags allow as much structure and organization as the front end wants to take advantage of. I’ve seen plenty of platforms that, once you pick your first tag, give a sorted list of other common tags you can dig down into, in addition to showing the list of content that meets the tag by whatever criteria you have. (An example I’m not sure exists, but very easily could, is to take the highest frequency set of tags with the least overlap (fiction/nonfiction/kids) and display them as titled shelves, then, once you click that, breaks down that group in the same manner until extra tags aren’t really useful.)

But in terms of the information they contain, the real world is fuzzy, so a method that allows for fuzzy buckets instead of strict ones is going to be more representative of the eventual content.

Use something that supports tags properly.

It lets you handle fuzzy boundaries way easier. If something’s both fantasy and sci fi? Give it both tags. A book on the real science implications of some fantasy magic system, using actual quantum physics models? No problem. Give it fiction and non-fiction, and science and fantasy.

Then you can filter by tags to get all the books that fit what you want.

That’s basically what comments are most useful for. When you’re doing something that’s not obvious, and want to make sure the “why” doesn’t get lost to time.

I was absolutely terrible at that. I had really bad homework grades and completion rates exactly because of shit like that.

“You gave me a 500 word question. I can’t make 1500 words out of it. If I’m going to fail anyways fuck turning it in.” (No, no part of that approach was intelligent, but I just couldn’t fill space with obvious trash. My brain would shut down.)

Yeah, I get shit occasionally in random places for using bigger words when they actually would take multiple sentences to replace.

But there are a fucking lot of people who use big (or obscure) words purely as a kind of signaling that they’re smart, rather than for communication. And it’s usually really obvious to people who have better vocabularies (or better understanding of the jargon in a specific field) that they don’t know what they’re doing.

If after looking up a word, the rationale for the word choice doesn’t become understandable on at least some level, it’s probably nonsense. (There are some super smart people who just don’t know how to communicate though and think the word’s as simple to everyone else as to them.)

I honestly don’t know how. Any non Nintendo 3D game it’s instantly super obvious. And any game at all it’s obvious if you just try to navigate a menu with it.

They make the $10 Chinese junk alternates look amazing by comparison.

I’m not just talking about the drift. The actual intended product is ludicrously imprecise out of the box.

It changed gaming. The steam deck probably doesn’t happen without the switch. It clearly demonstrated the market for a handheld that manages large scale 3D games with complex mechanics.

But the joycons suck at more than connectivity. Straight out of the box those joysticks are fucking terrible, and they degrade hard and fast.

I’m always skeptical of anything LLM, but this looks like an interesting use case on the surface.

Fuck everything about blocking the hardware and hardware mods, but if it’s true that he was packaging games with it, you don’t even get to any of that, because they’re probably going to get every dime he has for “selling” their games.

I would much rather pay full price than still pay for a DRMed version that’s effectively guaranteed to be supporting some sort of organized crime group. Mass distribution at scale, with DRM, by definition means Russian organized crime, or a drug cartel, or some other global bad actor on that scale that’s doing shit like trafficking humans, arms dealing, drugs, etc, as well.

But ignoring that (and that I generally buy my content), I wouldn’t pay $.10 for an illegitimate copy that had an added layer of DRM on it. It’s fundamentally fucking repulsive for some subgroup whose whole business relies on bypassing someone else’s copy control to add their own.

DRM on pirated games is fucking gross as shit.

If you’re scared about Microsoft tracking your UX engagement on a website, the best way to make sure your sex life stays private is to file it in federal court.

DNS names are restricted to your tailnet’s domain name (node-name.tailnet-name.ts.net)

I guess that’s fine for some. Not a compromise I’m willing to make though.

Because it’s a copy. It’s literally that simple.

Libraries can operate because of first sale doctrine. You can do almost whatever you want with a physical object that contains a copyrighted work.

What you can’t do is copy it. There is no possible legal way to distribute a digital copy of a work without an explicit license from the copyright holder. There isn’t even a legal concept of “owning” a digital copy. You purchase a license.

There’s really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there’s no precedent for a “fair use” defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, “one copy at a time” to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

The constitution explicitly grants authority to regulate IP. There’s absolutely no path to a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are the only way you get laws overturned. “Other legal doctrine” means something like violations of due process somewhere in the chain, which is a constitutional issue, or direct conflict with another law.

The only possible judicial remedy is the premise that it’s fair use, which there’s a lot of precedent that it isn’t.

What Internet Archive did is digitized physical books, then loaned out their “one copy” with DRM. Their assertion is that this constitutes fair use. I don’t really think there’s any merit to that argument based on the law and the body of precedent, and fundamentally tend to dislike legislation from the bench (judges just arbitrarily reinterpreting laws). Passing new laws and restructuring how IP law works is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

IA then made this worse by taking the already super tenuous “fair use” argument and throwing it out the window by removing the lending limits during Covid. It was waving a red flag in front of IP holders and begging them to take aggressive action.

I’d be all for altering definitions in a way that enables them to do stuff like the controlled lending system (also just digitizing shit generally).

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.