DATACOMMANDER

>Much of the streaming work is "security by obscurity" -- the systems only provide security because the end user either: 1) lacks the technical knowledge to save the data or 2) lacks the desire to do so (presuming they do possess the technical knowledge)

That's what I thought. I do think that a streaming video provider can provide added value, especially for live streams--e.g., by providing adaptive bit rates--but the terminology itself has a strong "wishful thinking from the business side" smell to it.

I only watch TV for sporting events. In my area, there’s currently a legal battle going on between the “regional sports network” that has negotiated broadcasting rights with certain major teams and Comcast, to whom the RSN sells the programming. Comcast declined to renew their contract, so games played by those teams are blacked out for Comcast customers. The RSN is arguing that Comcast has a monopsony on the purchase of programming from RSNs, and that their goal is to replace them with a subsidiary of their own. The original complaint and Comcast’s quick motion to dismiss show, if nothing else, that the RSN is legally out-gunned. It’s possible that 5G could provide an economically viable alternative distribution method—i.e., “over the top”—for the RSN.

It isn’t though. If you download someone’s work for your own enjoyment, you can plausibly argue that if you’d had to pay, you wouldn’t have been interested, so there’s no money that you’re taking from them. When you illegally sell someone’s work, there is necessarily money that should go to the artist but doesn’t.

No, it’s really not.

Selling copies of an artist’s work without their consent is categorically different from making copies for your own personal enjoyment.

“ For me, this all raises two questions:

Who’s responsible for this infringement?”

Both the company that wrote the algorithm that submitted the request and the company that responded by creating a listing.

“What responsibility do print-on-demand providers have to prevent infringement on their platforms?”

All of it. The company that submitted the request also has all of the responsibility. It doesn’t have to be split between them. They are both 100% responsible.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

This is a repost. They can transmit one bit (rotate or don’t rotate) with about 85% accuracy. That’s not nothing, but it’s not that much either.

Also true. See, e.g., Breaking Bad ;)

Okay.

Actually, most fortunes go to zero within a few generations. The “1% squared”—the top 0.01%—is not a monolithic group of people. I’d wager that 90% of the 0.01% had grandparents who were not even part of the 1%.

Real-estate speculation is basically rent-seeking, but inheritance is not. If someone amasses a fortune by creating wealth and leaves his assets to his offspring, they are not parasitic even if they never work. What matters is how the wealth was originally accumulated.

I used to have Georgist/geolibertarian sympathies, but my feelings now are pretty much the opposite (and no, I’m not a homeowner). In general, the rich do not create the poor. Moreover, communities have no obligation to make it easy for newcomers to overrun them.

Edit: Thanks for the downvote! Please remember to leave your shitty, entropic ideology when you flee the city you ruined.

...as opposed to Yuan, which is spent once and then immediately destroyed?

>That's kind of a childish argument to make - "why should we do it when x doesn't anyway? Hmph!"

Whoa there, settle down. That’s not the sentiment behind the argument.

Thanks for the great response. If I understand you, the problem is that this sort of state handling works at a low(ish?) level, and the frameworks that most people use nowadays didn’t prioritize it, so in order to do it properly you’d have to write custom code at a lower level of abstraction than most devs are comfortable with? Basically, it was handled poorly in libraries that are now universally used? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The lack of women in tech has never been caused by discrimination. Even if there’s been some discrimination, spending time and energy trying to increase the participation of demographic X in field Y is something I have a hard time understanding. It’s already been made abundantly clear in the West for at least a generation that if you want to pursue something constructive, you will receive welcome and support, regardless of your background. In my professional experience, I’ve never encountered even a whiff of anti-woman or anti-minority sentiment. I’ve worked at tech companies of various types and sizes occupying various niches, and the atmosphere has been unfailingly open and tolerant. I’ve spoken with colleagues who had no reason to hide their true feelings, and none of them has ever expressed a sexist or racist opinion.

I’ve read several ridiculous articles lamenting the obstacles that, supposedly, only women and minorities face when trying to get into computer programming. Sorry, but the only things stopping anyone who doesn’t live in abject poverty from becoming a coder are (a) lack of interest, (b) lack of persistence, and/or (c) lack of aptitude, in that order.

I didn’t say that I consider you part of the idiotic masses. I said that I hold that opinion if you’re part of the “woke” crowd. I don’t pretend that all idiocy comes from the left, but what does come predominantly from the left is the suggestion that anyone who doesn’t adhere to a rigid (yet tenuous!) ideology-be it feminism or Marxism or intersectionalism-is not only wrong, but hopelessly stupid or malicious or both.

I see what you’ve done here...and I approve.

I’m interested, but only if you don’t discriminate between the conservative idiotic masses (climate change denial, etc) and the liberal idiotic masses (agitating for a complete burn-down of western civilization).

Edit: which is to say, there are plenty of idiots on the right, but if you consider yourself “woke”, I’m not interested in an alliance with you because from my perspective you are part of the idiotic masses.

If the average Gen Z / younger millennial is as incapable of using the English language to express his or her thoughts as Lepera is, I’m happy to forsake my younger brothers and sisters and join Team Boomer. The best reply to “OK, boomer”?

“Okay, moron.”

“ Amputated the leg in 2 1⁄2 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient's testicles as well.”

Sounds made up, but I’d it’s not, that’s fucked up. You can’t do that by mistake.

I agree, this is the simplest and most likely explanation. As tempting as it is to buy into the romantic idea that they’re 100 years ahead of everyone else but can only use their powers in extreme circumstances, that just seems very unlikely.

I’ve noticed a trend recently. Someone will write a very long article about some problem, without mentioning politics once. Then, at the end, they’ll assert that the answer is to remake society from the ground up. This is the template:

5000 words of bitching about some problem that’s always existed

...

Ahem. And that is why we must dismantle the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy.

From the end of the preface:

“For reasons of space and coherence, our emphasis is also largely restricted to understanding and identifying the effects of applied causes. The problem of identifying the causes of observed effects raises many further subtle issues, both philosophical and mathematical, and would take us too far afield.”

I nodded in agreement while reading the article with one major exception: I don’t like the idea of changing defamation law to be more journalist-friendly. Yes to more government transparency; a big no to making it even easier for the media to get away with libel.

Really? I’m not a huge fan of globalization, but it’s hard to deny that it has raised the standard of living for the global poor. Look at China now vs China 40 years ago. They “globalized” by allowing more developed countries to exploit their cheap labor, and they’re much richer now than they were.

I don't know who downvoted you, but it wasn't me. I'll look at the papers you cited.

"Half the stuff you called "bullshit" on have been scientifically tested (and proved) in reputable journals."

I called two claims bullshit, so I presume you believe that one of them has been proven. Which one? Citation?

I'm not projecting anything onto anyone. I--like many other reasonable people--am bewildered by the intersectional left's refusal to accept reality. They are in fact the ones who become enraged when you point out obvious truths, such as that men and women are different.

The topic doesn't scare me, but if the discourse in the West continues down its current path, intersectionalism could become a dangerous thing. The core of the ideology is resentment, and history has shown that these resentment-based ideologies often have horrific results. (See, e.g., the the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust, the Russian Revolution, etc.)

No one is on "one or none" "axis of disadvantage". Everyone is born with many advantages and many disadvantages. Intersectionality is concerned exclusively with the the advantages held by white men in Western democracies. Women have many advantages that men don't have, but intersectionalists don't care about those.

Western society has a long history of producing ideologies centered on guilt and sexual propriety, and intersectionality is just the latest iteration. It's a descendant of puritanism.

Any ideology which hinges on the "blank slate" hypothesis is extreme, insofar as that hypothesis is very obviously false. Furthermore, intersectionalism is essentially a conspiracy theory.