> Fantasy book are a good example. A Games of Thrones was first released in 1996 but had middling success. It was only after 2011 that the series exploded in popularity. Good Omens main peak was ~15 years after release. Hell, some books like Handmaiden's Tale were published in 1985 but only reached their peak in 2010.
Using your example and the rules suggested in the grandparent post, GRRM's copyright would have been set to initially expire in 2024, where he would be able to pay $100k to renew it until 2038. Handmaiden's Tale works in a similar way, with the initial expiration in 2013.
BigCorps could do a lot of things under a new regime, but they are already doing shitty things. I'd rather deal with the current problems and then see if/what kind of new issues crop up, and then course-correct then.
GRRM is already beating them at that game by publishing a new book in the series every couple decades. That might become a common tactic in such a copyright environment
> I do wonder though, because I have seen a dozen other brands of Amazon delivery vehicles, is Amazon being 'sponsored' by these manufacturers or just buying cars all the time? I am really confused why there's so many different brands.
Amazon runs a program called "Delivery Service Partners" which basically certifies small businesses to deliver Amazon packages. They are given the option of using their own fleet of vehicles if they don't want to lease the vehicles designed by Amazon.
> Yet when NPR runs non-stop Walmart articles [1], often in a neutral to positive fashion, most are unaware that they've received millions of dollars from the Waltons.
The link your provided has 14 articles written in 2025. Topics covered: listeria outbreak, tariffs raising prices, radioactive shrimp, a stabbing at a store, and a shooting at a store.
Maybe two of the articles could be viewed as mildly positive towards the Walmart corporation, though they are basically just saying that the tariffs weren't impacting prices to the level that many people thought they were, and they were backed up with real-world data. I appreciate you providing an illustrative link to back up your post, but it doesn't really seem to agree with your point.
> A lot of the news gives the impression that your world is over when 14th hits, not recognising that historically legacy software and hardware is a thing.
There was a lot of buzz in the cybersecurity world near Window XP's EOL about attackers potentially holding on to exploits until after support ended, so as to avoid having them patched. Sure enough, CVE-2014-1776 was found being actively exploited two weeks after support officially ended.
Using a closed source operating system after it will no longer receive security patches is just plain dangerous. I don't really think people should be advocating for it at all outside of the purposes of historical preservation.
That's fair, but I'm not advocating to use legacy software. But am just highlighting that people and organisations are doing so. Sometimes they have no choice because their business runs on software that requires a specific OS or whatever reason. All we can do is encourage them to take steps to ramp up their security if they refuse to budge.
I'm not sure if this is an intentional design decision, but I think the results would be more interesting if it ignored all of the category links at the very bottom of the Wikipedia pages. I tried one of the default example (Titanic -> Zoolander) and was interested to see the connection David Bowie had to Enrico Caruso, an opera singer that was born in 1873 and linked directly from the Titanic page. It turns out that David Bowie is only linked on Caruso's page because they both won a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, of which all of the recipients ever are linked to at the bottom of the page.
By excluding the category links at the bottom that contain all the recipients, there would still be a connection, but it would include the extra hop between the two that makes their connection more clear on the graph (Titanic -> Caruso -> Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award -> David Bowie.)
Otherwise, this is a fun little tool to play around with. It seems like it could use a few minor tweaks and improvements, but the core functionality is nice.
Maybe the edges should be weighted based on the link location. If it’s in the bio box it’s high priority (sibling, father, Alma Mater, etc). If it’s in “See Also” it’s medium priority. If it’s a link on a “list of X” page it’s low priority…
> It turns out that David Bowie is only linked on Caruso's page because they both won a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, of which all of the recipients ever are linked to at the bottom of the page.
Sounds like a perfectly good connection to me, but "exclude categories" could still be a neat feature for exploring more indirect linkage. Not sure it would help in this case though -- is that actually a category page?
What the parent commenter is referring to is actually called a Navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigation_template). Like @chatmasta, I think it would be interesting to label those types of links distinctly and allow excluding them.
Or perhaps alternatively, exclude the contents of those navigation templates, but allow using them as an additional node: David_Bowie -> Template:Grammy_Lifetime_Achievement_Award -> Enrico_Caruso. (In this case, that is redundant with the main non-template Grammy_Lifetime_Achievement_Award page.)
Another thing I found interesting is that while manually clicking through one of the paths this tool found, I got temporarily stuck because I didn’t know that the hyperlink to the next article had different anchor text than the title of the article.
> These days you've got Gambas for a free and open source VB, including the terrible language, but in my experience the looks are a bit off when you design on one desktop environment and run the application on another.
There is also Lazarus[1], which uses Pascal but feels closer to what I remember of the VB6 experience.
Announcements like this typically contain information that will help users identify if they were compromised, such as the name of files that are dropped or modified when the malware is initialized, startup entry names, etc. Obviously the person with remote access can get in and manually start doing things on individual machines, but that doesn't mean there aren't indicators present from the programmatic actions the malware took before that point or on machines that weren't manually accessed.
Expecting a complete malware analysis from maintainers is a tad too much. Their goal is to notify users as soon as possible, even if no other information about the malware is available.
Also, an attacker may leave no traces by simply dumping the payload to /tmp.
In addition to the point about "not being expected to do a full malware analysis"...
Assuming the malware doesn't clean up after itself, `pacman -Q firefox-patch-bin librewolf-fix-bin zen-browser-patched-bin` would tell you if they are installed... but if it did clean up after itself... how are the maintainers supposed to know what steps were taken to clean up given that it's a rat that could be running different steps on different computers...
The author explains in the article that they previously gave a presentation outlining various techniques to achieve a "schizophrenic" zip file. The blog post discusses an additional technique that was not present in their previous presentation.
Using your example and the rules suggested in the grandparent post, GRRM's copyright would have been set to initially expire in 2024, where he would be able to pay $100k to renew it until 2038. Handmaiden's Tale works in a similar way, with the initial expiration in 2013.
This still seems very reasonable to me.