PenguinTD

it's like the first person invent a way to make the pop cap for your travel coffee mug. Like, anyone could have come up with that idea, right? compare to screw cap we used to have. We do have plenty of examples where the patent aren't really popular until after it is expired or irrelevant.

Like, yeah, in a heatlhy competition env, it is way better for consumer in the beginning. But because of how capital works, eventually without patent it all goes to the bigger corps.

for practical physical good, some times a patent just means I did this first doesn't mean it's hard to do or replicate. ie. like the umbrella wedge/spring to make it open automatically. That's the part of ingenuity. And why I think the mini game during loading screen worth the patent.

I don't like algorithm patent because ultimately, it was there, if original sha hash wasn't developed, someone would come up with a different method that doing roughly the same. It's the math and other prior foundation in computer hasing/data processing provides the idea and how you can process and get the hash fast. so your newer arrangement of faster version(like different sorting algorithm) would not be possible without those other research.

ie. for my own example, my thesis involves doing polygon culling strategy, my base algorithm is totally base on math prediction as to what's the optimum I can achieve minimum culling checks. BUT, that algorithm is actually slower than when you implement the checks base on how GPU is doing the render plus cache efficiency. If I did not know or not aware how computer works from prior study, I can't figure out why my "optimum" algorithm is actually slower than sub-optimum checking strategy.

Say, what if SHA or whatever algorithms is implemented, and is actually very impactful to other application, which can be proven that anyone can naturally come to this conclusion by doing their own research, simply grant that patent impedes future development. Another computer graphic patent is the Joe Alter hair distribution, it has nothing to do with ingenuity and just because his dad is a good patent lawyer, it blocks any healthy competition from selling CG hair grooming product in US. If you check the patent itself, that was like trying to patent a math distribution over surface.

You should not patent algorithms as it's a "discovery" not an invention.

There are 2 main category in software patents that mimics real life production, that I think is fairly acceptable.

• ingenuity: komani patent that mini game during loading screen
• unique concept: the nemesis system

The throwing ball to capture creature I think is more copyright than patent.

it's not the first GPU.

If you are a software company, like valve, but to publish phone app. They have to go through Google store since that's how you get that "verified" thing and you don't have to enable developer mode. And for user that's a peace of mind.

Is there a phishing website on PC, yeah, and how do you know? Usually it's going through search engine or your bookmark and then check the HTTPS icons on your browser. There are also signed cert if you download and the windows exe launcher will check that with 3rd party cert. These alternative methods are not readily available on a phone, and that's intentionally implemented so software developer will funnel back to the play store.

You can't really open a android store unless you make phone and ship with your own store. Like Samsung one, it's listed in the play store contract, almost all forms of paying developer directly is not allowed. There are many conditions/steps and warnings if you tried to install apps off the play store, some of them waive your warranty. You also open the phones to potential scammer to have identical looking website and instruct users to install app that steal identity.

If gameplay itself is dependant on online servers, the game has to release a working version of the server code so it at least could be run by fans, or be refunded.

I replied to one of it a while ago and basically, this part is impossible since developer also "license" 3rd party backend/plugins/software solutions to make their server working. The developer do not have the right to release licensed code/api etc.

meaning, say if a backend have the free learning version of license, the developer are bound to the commercial license, which dictates if they can release code that involve 3rd party code/api.

Feb 28th, 2025

I am fine with electric car that have software to monitor battery/motor efficiency and gives feedback for the driver/owner. But have it controls almost everything and can remote brick your vehicle is like you never really own the car.

It goes back to province and then where? If it benefits everyone, say upgrade the library to be more energy efficient, provide rebates if you upgrade your heat/aircon system to modern standard of your buildings, like those I'd say that's good use of carbon tax money. But if dumped to some big oil RnD branch for green energy tech that we won't see in another 10/20 years, cause they do not have any motivation to actually pull it. (since their balance sheet is neutral once they get the tax money back from one of their branch/subsidiary. ) I might be biased cause I lived in a old tower building, I really wish our building can start the window/etc remodeling but I only have 1 vote. (my winter base board heating is 200+ on coldest weeks, cause the entire building's windows are over 25+ years old and already leaking and not up to par. )

I do wish there are more locally own/operated grocery stores or farmer's markets. But they are usually located at the out skirts of the city and then you have to drive to get them. The web operated aren't exactly benefiting those farmers nor consumers nor the carbon goals and more expensive/less choice. (because quantity and delivery vehicles etc. )

Yeah, I am talking in macro scale. The things as consumer can choose to avoid:

• change to non-carbon fuel vehicle or get rid of personal vehicle and choose public transport if available.
• do less things to increase carbon foot print. (like dial the thermo stat and put on more clothing in winter. )
• buy stuff from company that have goals toward carbon neutral.

But as consumer I can't avoid:

• increased price of grocery/goods from manufacturing or shipping
• the way companies decide to approach their own cost cutting/offsetting.

The important part is, where the carbon tax go? Do they go into hands that actually have goals and plan/milestone to meet? Or they go into some paper green RnD subsidiaries of big oil?

misinformation aside, tax the industry simply increase their cost and they can still just offset to the consumers no? since consumer don't have others down the chain to offset that cost. I know on the sheet you can't list tax as cost, but if the tax come when you buy the fuel, then it becomes part of the cost for say, a truck fleet company. If you tax the oil/fuel companies for how much they produced/shipped, they will have to raise the cost to account for the lost of potential tax to make the balance sheet or projection look nicer. I can't think of a way to tax carbon and those cost won't trickle down. But tax at the source would make overall consumption reduced since the gov artificially drive up the cost of that resource.

In short, consumer would still foot the bill, but the goal to reduce carbon based fuel stays the same.