bryans

Having a GPS location doesn't mean you have a suspect. Unless the person called from their own property (zero chance) or didn't move locations at all after making the call (very unlikely), it would require a substantial investigation that most departments aren't able or willing to do, because the odds of catching someone would be extremely low.

Late on the reply, but I don't think your argument matches reality.

1. Storage for 50MB is less than $0.001 per month. So, even if you're storing and backing up every every version of an app, and they update a very high 50 times per year, and they're storing on 12 different locales, that's less than $1 per year for the typical app.

2. "Global distribution" is a one time cost per app update at approximately $0.006 per 50MB per server. For 12 updates per year spread across 12 servers, that's less than $1 per year total. Over 75% of apps are updated less than once per month.

3. Retries, re-downloads and updates are already insignificant transfer costs, per my original comment. Even if you want to attribute 90% of those downloads to being updates from the same set of users, and keep the lifetime revenue per user at a very low estimate of $1, Apple is still taking $6,000 for approximately $105 of hosting costs.

All in all, that matches my original estimate of $100 per 200k downloads for transfer and $5 for server fees. So, as I said, hosting isn't relevant to the conversation, at all.

> The servers do not cost 30% of all sales on the platform. Not even close.

Specifically, the transfer cost to download a 50MB app is approximately $0.0005. That's 200,000 downloads per $100. Even assuming a low average revenue of $1 per download, that's a $60,000 take for Apple for maybe $105 worth of hosting.

That's not to say there aren't other costs involved in running the store. But we definitely shouldn't be pretending that hosting is even relevant to the conversation. Hosting costs haven't been relevant for over a decade.

Even if you're legitimately attempting to analyze political preferences or skew on social media, it seems incredibly inappropriate to be basing that analysis on someone who makes purely biased claims in all of their social media posts. There are so many analytical flaws in the graphs he provides, that they really shouldn't be used for anything.

They've selectively[1] searched for multiple Palestine hashtags, which all show up under the same base hashtag[2], but then count all of the hashtags as separate data points -- and then compares them to a singular Israel hashtag that includes an emoji, which won't include most results regarding Israel. What's worse, is that including a Palestine hashtag doesn't remotely guarantee that the post is pro-Palestine or anti-Israel, and the same is true for posts including Israel hashtags not necessarily being pro-Israel, which can also be seen in [2]. In reality, the #palestine hashtag is used in pro-Israel posts all the time, so the sweeping generalizations made by Anthony Goldbloom aren't based on any legitimate statistical methodology.

Instead of echoing Goldbloom's manipulation of data as factual, it should be used as an example of pro-Israel disinformation and entirely backs the article's claim. In fact, even Goldbloom admits that he made mistakes[3], and the other graph was made by him and not the company who conducted the survey, who actually disputes his claim.

I think it could even be argued that your comment, without any supporting facts other than a very pro-Israel Twitter pundit who already debunked himself, is contributing to the misinformation discussed in the article, even if you're doing so unintentionally.

[1] https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602/...

[2] https://www.tiktok.com/@kituuuub/video/7298048299905355041?q...

[3] https://www.semafor.com/article/12/07/2023/tiktok-antisemiti...

No, you literally cannot stop people from acquiring guns in the United States, as it's baked in the Constitution. Please make arguments based in reality.

If you want to build trust in this industry, I think you'll need to do better than cloning an existing product and slapping a "for the people" label on it. Content creators of all types are exhausted by the endless nickel and diming, so at this point, transparency is going to be the only way to attract a mass audience.

When everyone knows hosting costs equate to a fraction of a penny per sale, you'll need to strongly justify that 5% fee. You'll need to pay ~3.5% in PRO fees just to have public playback on the site -- even if there's not a single cover song among the uploaded albums -- so let both the artist and fan know where that money is going and why.

A huge problem with the "pay what you want" model is that the host and PRO still get to middleman what is fundamentally a tip from the fan. Find a way to implement a secondary form for tips that go straight to an account the artist owns, without making the purchase form more complicated, and you'll have an attractive and unique feature.

However, Fourthwall already has a polished version of your product roadmap and charges less for it, albeit without the music-specific theming, and even Patreon recently implemented direct digital sales. You're facing an uphill battle against entrenched and VC-backed products.

When it comes to drug abuse, harm reduction can mean providing clean needles and other supplies to the user. The person isn't going to stop just because they're denied clean supplies. In the same way that you can't stop people from acquiring guns, but you can help prevent them from purchasing guns that are fundamentally unsafe to operate.

There are some clever folks on gig sites (Fiverr, Upwork, etc) who are feeding stock video into AI just for the "artificialization" of each frame, while visually retaining the same actors' features, clothing and background scenes -- which also allows cuts that are longer than 4s. The results are surprisingly good, as long as you can find stock footage of the scenes you need.

I just moved into an apartment advertised at $1,420/mo that is costing over $1,700/mo because of extra fees only mentioned in fine print inside a 100+ page lease. The "no hidden fees" ISP that I'm now forced to use has over $30/mo in hidden fees. It's not just prevalent, it's business as usual for every company everywhere -- because they can and they know nobody will do anything about it.

MIDI playback does not require a device and is baked into the OS via QuickTime's synthesizer and Microsoft GS Wavetable Synth.

> No, they aren’t.

Very convincing argument. Also, that's maybe the one part of this discussion that can't be debated. Possession of illegally obtained property, intellectual or otherwise, is illegal. Always has been, always will be. It's bizarre for you to be claiming otherwise.

> While copyright violation is often metaphorically (or hyperbolicly) referred to as stealing [...]

You are making a pedantic argument about the term "stealing," which is annoyingly pointless given the rest of that sentence (which you conveniently didn't quote) acknowledges the debate about the term. However, there's no debate to be had. The courts have clarified that violating intellectual property is still a denial of owed compensation (theft), but instead prefer the term "infringe" to make clear the distinction between violating physical rights (criminal) and violating intellectual rights (civil).

It's still a violation of copyright to be in possession of works obtained via illegal reproduction. You have zero fair use protections for illegally reproduced content. You are still breaking the law. You are still stealing via denial of compensation. The courts have already clarified all of this. Your pedantry doesn't change any of that.

Absolutely it is. There is two centuries of precedence marking copyrighted works as property. It's literally called intellectual property. The courts have only made clarification that intellectual property doesn't violate physical property theft laws (denying ownership), but instead intellectual property theft laws (denying compensation).

> Right, the question is, when my computer requests a file from your computer, which one of us is "making a copy" ? It becomes less ambiguous to ask who is doing the publishing.

That question is irrelevant in a discussion about legality, because it doesn't matter who physically made the copy at the time of transfer. It only matters if the first party has the legal rights to distribute it, which they don't. Since you are knowingly taking possession of copyrighted property that they don't have the rights to, then you have now violated the copyright by obtaining an illegal reproduction.

> In a physical analogy, if someone is selling bootleg DVDs on the street, I don't think anyone ever got busted for being a customer.

Just because you don't get arrested for purchasing a bootleg DVD, doesn't make it legal. Not all illegal things involve arrest or prosecution. Lots of illegal things can only result in civil lawsuits. This is one of those things. The reason the seller of the bootleg DVDs can be arrested, is because the cities where bootleg sales are most common have laws specifically targeting the advertisement and sale of copyrighted works that were reproduced illegally. If you buy one, you're still violating the copyright and the MPAA could file a lawsuit if they had any evidence of your purchase and felt it was worth their time.

You say that very confidently, but you are very wrong. If you download music from a source that does not have a license to distribute that music, then they are violating the copyright and you are now in possession of stolen property. Finland uses different terminology for Fair Use, but the citations amount to the same as US policy and only apply if you obtained the work by legal means.

Chapter 28: Theft https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039_199...

Chapter 2, Section 12: Reproduction https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1961/en19610404.pdf

> Possession of copyrighted material in itself is not illegal.

The means of procurement matters. If they are in possession of copyrighted material because someone without the proper rights gave it to them illegally, then the possession itself is also illegal. It's illegal to own knowingly stolen property in all 50 US states and most countries, and while we could argue to the end of days about whether copying a file truly qualifies as stealing, the legal precedents are very clear on the matter.

> nobody has ever been sued or prosecuted simply for downloading, acquiring, or possessing illegally acquired copyrighted works

Everyone who was sued by the RIAA was done so for possessing the music in a publicly accessible method. Distribution was never actually proven in any of the cases (including the high profile losses). Defendants who argued that accessibility does not qualify as distribution actually won their cases. Most who argued against the validity of the evidence acquisition also won their cases.

> Air has no scent and yet no one insists on only consuming air with scented candles.

Well that's not true at all, given that millions of households use continuous plug-in air fresheners all day, every day. Multiple industries exist solely around scenting the air. Your analogy just doesn't hold up to reality.

Your pedantry is neither appropriate nor correct. Manga is most often black and white purely because of time and budget constraints, not because manga's style is defined as black and white. There are tons of full-color manga, and many that become popular have color editions released.

You're absolutely correct. And it shows how out of touch Hacker News is that the people who understand the existing market get downvoted, while the people who claim "YouTube ads are the only way to make money" somehow get upvoted. What a sad state this site is in.

There aren't that many topics to learn. If you pick one music industry content creator, they will have around two days worth of videos that you can watch. If you do the things they say, you will make money. There's no magic to it.

Many thousands of live streaming musicians have had no trouble going from $0 to $5k/mo. You're welcome to check out Twitch or TikTok any time for evidence of this.

You're pretending that YouTube ads are how musicians make money, and that's just not the case. YouTube is one tiny piece of the marketing map -- not the revenue one.

> Making a living doing it is harder than ever!

It's extremely easy to make a living from music right now. With a weekend's worth of YouTube training, any decent musician or songwriter should be able to invest 40hr/wk and reliably generate $5k/mo within a year.

Again, you're making things up because it "sounds correct" to you, but that doesn't make it reality. Your examples of violent crimes that go unreported seem to be based entirely on interactions you've had or heard about with homeless people. Yes, SF has a substantial homeless population, which increases the likelihood of those extremely minor "violent" offenses happening. But that isn't new, at all, and it's baseless and ridiculous to suggest that an increase in awkward incidents with the homeless means that there is a tsunami of attempted murders.

Seattle, NYC, Dallas, Chicago and a hundred others also have huge homeless populations and even higher rates of violent crime that are actually trending upward, but you don't see the populations of those cities going into a full panic or claiming that the violent sky is falling. SF residents are getting caught up in mass hysteria. It's really as simple as that.

The police would prefer the statistics show a rise in violent crime, because that would quickly result in an increase of their funding, which they actively and publicly pursue constantly. So if it's propaganda, it's self-defeating propaganda, making it far more likely that you're experiencing paranoia based on mass hysteria, rather than a police department going massively out of their way to turn down millions of dollars.

The idea that violent crime is reported less in SF than any other city is a fallacy based on, again, confirmation bias. Also, theft isn't violent crime. And as I already explained twice, theft in SF has returned to pre-pandemic levels, while violent crime in SF is still consistently lower than most large cities and decreasing. Violent crimes almost always get reported. So, your argument is based on the opposite of reality.

It's a concerning level of paranoia to suggest that multiple and separate data collection sources, including the city government, local police, state police, the FBI, justice advocates and local journalists, are ALL manipulating statistics to create a narrative that SF is safer than your perception. Especially considering that your personal narrative would be preferable to the police agencies, since it would allow them to more easily demand (and receive) more funding if violent crime were actually on the rise.

Please go read the threads about the Bob Lee suspect arrest, so you can see all of the people who were making the same mass-hysterical argument you're making, but admitting how they now regret getting caught up in that "SF is the Thunderdome" hysteria.

You're claiming that hard data from numerous sources doesn't matter because it doesn't match up with your personal experience, and then doubled down on your claim that violent crime is increasing, despite every source imaginable disagreeing with you. We apparently live in different universes.

https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-Che...

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/us/ca/san-francisco/crime...

Except for the fact that what is happening in San Francisco is completely normal. All violent crime stats in SF are still trending downward. The only increase in crime is non-violent theft, and the current rates are just a return to pre-pandemic levels, which makes sense given that there were far fewer opportunities for people to interact during the pandemic. And all of these crime rates are relatively the same or even better than the rest of the country.

What you're experiencing is confirmation bias. You read about one crime, then started noticing all of the stories about crime, formed a theory based on this hyper focusing, and now you believe it's worse than ever despite the stats clearly showing otherwise.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/fixing-san-francis...

https://sfgov.org/scorecards/public-safety/violent-crime-rat...

Nobody ever said that intermittent fasting would prevent you from becoming overweight. If you still overeat, you will still gain weight. It's not magic. You're being hypercritical for no reason and without knowledge of the topic.

If you had read something about Apple being "extremely vigilant" about eliminating child labor, it was a press release from Apple. It was a bald-faced lie, but it apparently worked, because you're unfortunately perpetuating it (even if unintentionally so).

In reality, Apple has only started to address child labor in the past two years, and that was after being exposed for their continued egregious use of child labor and unwavering support of labor abuses.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-l...

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-supplier-accused-of-us...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-chi...

Performers don't actually want to be bleeding dry their fans' bank accounts. They are forced to participate in that system if they want to play at any venue over a particular capacity, all of whom have strict partnerships with TM. In that system, the performers have virtually zero input or control over the ticket price, and often have tight restrictions on where and how often they can perform at these venues.

So, it's not a matter of scarcity, but a matter of one company hyper-maximizing profits based on an illusion of scarcity that they create. And the only intention is to con middle and low-income families into spending exorbitant sums to see their favorite performers, while the labels and marketing agencies spend millions to convince them the shows shouldn't be missed. It's all by design.

Seeing a concert should not be a once in a decade event, and for many families, it currently is. And the only people preventing them from seeing those shows are a handful of executives at a couple of companies, for the sake of absolutely absurd profit margins.