Brendinooo

>Duplicating a video doesn’t deprive another person of anything

This was the claim. I said what I said to point out that if everyone acted on this belief for a feature film, there would be a thousand people who ultimately don't get compensated for their work.

You are right: not everyone is able or willing to pirate. Piracy is only able to exist because of these people who pay for art. That's definitely true, and definitely different than the claim that no one is being deprived of anything.

>The production crew is getting peanuts anyway

1000 people on a feature film, you're looking at about $70 million in salary. That's peanuts to you?

> If one out of 100 people donates them some money, they come out ahead.

In other words, you're conceding the point that they would be deprived of something if everyone pirates their work.

If a production crew of 1000 people makes a movie and everyone pirates it, you don't think those people will be deprived of anything?

As is often the case with our commander in chief, things once expressed subtly are now expressed brazenly.

I mean, if you really believe that, then no politician would ever be able say something like "I'll work to get you free health care".

Apparently not.

>In Brown v. Hartlage (1982), a Supreme Court case where a Kentucky county commissioner promised to reduce his salary if elected, the Court unanimously drew a line between policy promises and vote buying. “A candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection,” Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote. Given that precedent, Trump is almost certainly within the bounds of the law (you might remember Elon Musk wasn’t charged for handing out $1 million checks to people during a campaign rally in Wisconsin in exchange for “taking the time to vote.”).

https://www.readtangle.com/trump-dividend-midterm-promise/

>They see it as some great holy mission from god to go out into the hinterlands and convert the local people from their local existing belief system to their own particular form of Christianity

That is, pretty famously, the "great commission" given by the founder of the faith.

>Christian missionaries who treat the population of PNG as some sort of religious terra nullus

Apparently it's not a religious terra nullus, since PNG's parliament recently voted 80-4 to identify themselves as a Christian nation.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/pacific/544665/papua-new-guinea-d...

Why would I switch off of Ubuntu? It's what came with my system.

Anyone starting from the couch just needs to start. I started by just pursuing a goal of "run a mile without stopping", then 2, etc.

I've messed with zone 2 a bit and read a fair amount about it. If it gets you out there moving consistently: great. The best workout plan is the one you do. But otherwise I really think it's more of an optimization strategy for people who are trying to seriously increase their miles per week, and are pairing it with higher-intensity runs and/or weight training.

As someone who loves buying music - yeah, I hear that.

I just never really felt like the incentives were quite the same to purchase movies. They've always been constrained by their formats/vendors in a way that was never as true for music, they've always cost more, I don't rewatch movies as much as I'll re-listen to albums, and I think the...I dunno...nature, telos of movies lends itself better to ephemeral access.

Nope, not a Netflix exec. One would imagine if I was, I'd have used Netflix as my example.

I dunno about you, but in my lifetime, if I would have invested in owning VHS, DVD, or HD-DVD, that would not have paid off for me. (I might have owned a lot, but I wouldn't have been happy.)

I guess Blu-Ray has stuck around, but I find that I don't rewatch a ton of movies anyways. I've never felt comfortable buying digital video because I never liked the idea of buying into an ecosystem.

And...discs aren't cheap anyways? Just did a random search - Tron: Legacy (a movie that's been out for awhile, I like, I would re-watch) costs $27.99 to buy a physical copy. So again: $28 to acquire one movie; $31 for me to watch that movie or hundreds of others I want within the course of a month.

Thanks for making me think of this, it's another bullet in support of what I was saying before.

Still a great ecosystem and value for dollar overall! That's one reason why prices have gone up.

No long-term contracts, no additional hardware needed, no hidden fees. Still the option to not see ads for most of the services. You can freely jump from service to services.

Plenty of promos out there still, too: for example, I get $10 back per month on an ad-free Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle through my credit card. That plan costs me about $31/month: $31 doesn't buy me a meal out with my family, it doesn't buy me a single football ticket, it might get me into one movie with the family if I do some cheap matinee (not counting gas to drive up and snacks).

This is such a weird take.

Did you gatekeep people who built sites with FrontPage as well?

I dunno. Maybe there's a sense in which there's some untapped use cases out there that Apple needs to go figure out. But in a different sense, the idea that I buy a watch that lasts for years and I don't feel like I'm missing out in the meantime...sounds fine?

I got my first Apple Watch a year and a half ago. After coming to terms with the fact that the form factor has fundamental limitations, it's faded into the background and has been an excellent watch, fitness tracker, and occasional remote control and messaging device. I'm kinda glad that series 11 and 12 haven't given me fomo!

(I do wish they made more good watch faces though...)

I'm not morally/philosophically opposed to someone generating text with AI. I just don't want to read something that isn't really "owned" by the person creating it (that is, the writer knows what he is sending me and endorses all of its contents), and because I can't discern that from people I don't know, I tend to view it with suspicion by default.

Right. But it doesn't say what kind of geopolitical unrest, and it draws a stark contrast to an article that is filled with all sorts of unproven guesses about it (guesses that are quoted as being "inherent").

I mostly agree with this; your comment paints a far more plausible and level-headed picture than the article does.

> It’s easy to say that Trump was a factor in this decision

I don't disagree with that. (I mentioned Iran, a crisis that was precipitated by the current administration.)

I disagree with "Experts say that rhetoric appears inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies" and "Having those reserves in the United States is a potential vulnerability...You can absolutely imagine a scenario where, for whatever reason, the Trump administration decides to hold onto them" etc.

I mean, if I hear the phrase "geopolitical unrest", I'm far more inclined to think "Iran"/"Russia" than "51st state".

If the point is to get your gold away from the US and its president, why leave ~19% of if there? Why take gold out of Canada? Why is a two-word phrase inherently related to the abrasiveness of the Trump administration towards traditional allies"?

And the bank's stated reason is: "Gold that is held with the Bank of England must meet modern international trade standards and is regarded as the world's most easily tradable gold and will therefore be the most readily available for DNB in a crisis situation. The gold reserves held in New York and Ottawa cannot be utilised as quickly and directly in such a situation." Why is that not the more plausible one, and the basis for the headline?

Data from a chart in the article:

  Share of gold before relocation:

    New York: 31.33%
    Zeist: 30.83%
    Ottawa: 19.72%
    London: 18.12%

  Share of gold after relocation

    New York: 18.52%
    Zeist: 30.83%
    Ottawa: 18.52%
    London: 32.13%

In other words, if you read the headline and thought the Netherlands was just pulling gold out of the US and it was pulling ALL of its gold out, you're not seeing the whole story.

And if you read the whole article, you'll see that all of the anti-Trump framing comes from "experts", not from the actual people moving the gold.

If you'd like to read the actual statement from the Dutch National Bank, it's here:

https://www.dnb.nl/en/general-news/press-release-2026/dnb-im...

Yeah, exactly this.

The Web has always been a bunch of things: complicated backends that just need something in the frontend to operate, flashy marketing sites that don't do much behind the scenes but build brand credibility, cheap-to-free sites that people cobble together just to get something out there. Some are "web sites", some are "web apps".

For some of these cases, frontend is probably dead. For some, either the robots aren't quite able to have the level of originality and fidelity people are after yet, or the robots will enable more people to do better frontend work.

And like you're saying, it has to "feel" good/right. That can be a hard thing to prompt!

Ah yes, right around the time when I buy my heating oil for the winter...

Perhaps you want a website for your Monterey cypress and want the domain macroc.arpa?

> Who is still using Anthropic seriously...Subscriptions only get you frustrated

If you're using Claude in a pair-programming/"exoskeleton" sense, you'll probably never get close to maxing your subscription allotment unless you really lean on Fable.

The "you can't get anything done" comment confounds me, frankly.

My impression is that Opus 5 can be very impressive if you don't care about maintenance, novel-length comments, and really having any input in general. But otherwise it's borderline-to-totally unusable. It seems tailor-made to not have a human in the loop.

Useless for reverse-engineering the software that talks to a ten-year-old video cam + DVR system I was given, really nice for things I actually do in my day job (web dev at an agency).

Love a good IKEA hack. Readily available, standardized, low-cost materials are a great platform to build creatively!

bwahaha. I mean to say, I don't run it.

I don't run this kind of skin unironically but I do think that desktop GUIs used to be a lot more intuitive in some ways. They were still educating PC users on how to use PCs and so there was less of a temptation to hide features and smooth things out for the sake of pure aesthetics.

(The slide-to-unlock on the original iPhone OS comes to mind as an analogy on the phone: babies could figure it out, but by iOS 7 they figured enough people knew how to unlock that they could make it less obvious.)

What lie, exactly? The claim was

> Twitter did used to have some pretty notable censorship.

Are you saying that the person you replied to is willfully deceiving people by saying this?

Because I think it's very obviously true, and we can say this without even bringing up the site as it is now. I think you think so too, given that you were able to offer your own characterization of pre-Musk censorship.