637 karma · joined September 30, 2023
Filing a report with the German data protection authority.
The only purpose of a CLA like this is to provide for a future where the software can be made non-free again.
85% of a bigger number is significantly more than 70% of a much smaller number.
For the record, I am steelmanning a position in which abject piracy is a social negative, which I do not actually believe, but if we take that at face value my arguments still hold.
I don't deny that Spotify has improved the situation for many artists, but rather that it hasn't done enough and other approaches do it better, and I believe this is factually true.
Moreover, I have proposed ways of engaging with music which makes substantially more money for artists. I am not the one being dishonest here.
By reading the rest of my comment.
>What a dishonest comment to support stealing.
Copying is not theft.
Fact of the matter is that in terms of getting artists paid, Spotify's business model and distribution model is inferior to other solutions and the economic cost of circumventing the ads is little to none, and in fact if you take advantage of Spotify's distribution model for convenience and buy elsewhere for economics then you are performing a net social good.
Even if you only listen to one artist, 8 hours per day, 365 days a year, they will earn a whopping... 100 bucks from Spotify.
> First, it cannot be assumed, without argument, that ethnic distinctions are wholly exogenous to other political, economic, and social variables of interest. For example, poor economic performance could exacerbate distributional struggles, causing people to see and act along lines of ethnic division that were formerly considered unimportant. By contrast, robust economic growth might lead to the downplaying of ethnic divisions and a greater emphasis on national identity. If Botswana seems more ethnically homogeneous than Somalia does at this point, it may be that this is in part a result rather than a cause of economic growth.
The paper also goes into great detail on the problems inherent in trying to categorize ethnic groups; these two factors combined are why I object to your methodology here and I would recommend that you read the paper for yourself. In other words, any conclusions drawn or inferences made based on this data without controlling for innumerable complicating factors is likely to be a case of garbage in, garbage out.
Of course, ethnic diversity is just one of many forms of diversity, which further removes this data from your argument.
> However, independently of the emergence of inclusive fitness theory, from 1960s onwards many anthropologists themselves had reexamined the balance of findings in their own ethnographic data and had begun to reject the notion that human kinship is 'caused by' blood ties (see Kinship). Anthropologists have gathered very extensive ethnographic data on human social patterns and behaviour over a century or more, from a wide spectrum of different cultural groups. The data demonstrates that many cultures do not consider 'blood ties' (in the genealogical sense) to underlie their close social relationships and kinship bonds. Instead social bonds are often considered to be based on location-based shared circumstances including living together (co-residence), sleeping close together, working together, sharing food (commensality) and other forms of shared life together. Comparative anthropologists have shown[6] that these aspects of shared circumstances are a significant component of what influences kinship in most human cultures, notwithstanding whether or not 'blood ties' are necessarily present (see Nurture kinship, below).
I like how easy you and p-e-w are making it to debunk your argument by citing a bunch of sources that don't support you. I think you're just racist conservatives making up facts from whole cloth to support some narrative of deintegration.