Do they mean 1.3 Million subscribers dropped Disney+ ?

If that's what they meant, english would actually let them say that.

For more thinking about this issue for software/hardware makers a good read is "Enchanted Objects" by David Rose.

iirc. He says we're in a 'Glass Rectangle' phase, where makers are stuck on screens, Like Xhibit in Pimp my ride - we put 22 screens in your car. They know how to "screen" and they use it the solution to all problems. It's like an infatuation, where you just can't see another way. There are entire sciences of Human Machine Interaction that explain why these designs are messed up, and the designers are aware, and have chosen otherwise.

2016 Actor Antov Yelkin who played Checkov is killed by his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee, pinning him to his mailbox and fence. Because it didn't have a gearshift. It has a thing that looks like a shift but is a joystick.

This exemplifies Fox - they provided a lengthy article, and a 3 person video with interviews, and yet the listener/reader knows no more about what actually happened than before they began. Its well produced hearsay.

Equity.

In total, at the close of last year, SEC documents show that exactly 65 percent of Spotify was owned by just six parties: the firm’s co- founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon (30.6 percent of ordinary shares between them); Tencent Holdings Ltd. (9.1 percent); and a run of three asset-management specialists: Baillie Gifford (11.8 percent), Morgan Stanley (7.3 percent), and T.Rowe Price Associates (6.2 percent). These three investment powerhouses owned more than 25 percent of Spotify between them — a fact worth remembering next time there’s an argument about whose interests Spotify is acting in when it makes controversial moves (for example, SPOT’s ongoing legal appeal against a royalty pay rise for songwriters in the United States).

Furthermore, according to MBW estimates, which my sources suggest are still solid, two major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — continue to jointly own between six percent and seven percent of Spotify (Sony around 2.35 percent and Universal around 3.5). With Sony and UMG added into the mix, then, the names mentioned here comfortably own more than 70 percent of Spotify.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/>

just some critical thinking notes.

The title says: "Findings Cast Doubt..." One might expect that the core of the essay will be .... findings. One might expect that as with most commonly taught English writing practices, the first paragraph would both outline the point, and give a brief summary of the point.

Seven, eight paragraphs in, the 'Findings' are still being teased.

This type of article ... accurate or not, is working through a 'Palm reader' technique, where they build up a series of 'connections with the subject', a long line of 'Yeses' then they slowly begin to introduce _their points. The technique is able to slip past some percent of critical thinking, because the person has been led down a path of agreements.

Again accurate or not, it couches the 'Findings' in a sea of 'everyone knows', 'modern scholars agree' , 'doubts have existed from the beginning'. These are not facts, they are well worded disparaging digs, which contextualize the subject to their bias.

Technically speaking its a 'plausible'. Practically speaking it's a hard no.

It's perfectly possible for tech folk to create a version of android for any iPhone. Apple has locked the hardware so that that can't happen.

As others have said, you can sell the iPhone and get a nice Android.

"The MOAB contains 26 billion records over 3,800 folders, with each folder corresponding to a separate data breach. While this doesn’t mean that the difference between the two automatically translates to previously unpublished data, billions of new records point to a very high probability, the MOAB contains never seen before information." Totaling 12TB.

Which is a end-game around E2E. Saying 'the message is encrypted', but yes, I look at all messages before and/or after violates the expectation of E2E.

Thanks for saying this. It's features at price point.

"It's better than the Pi at only 3x the price."

And what's with the "Avoid the Raspberry PI" sentiment? They are hard to get (?). I've been using the Pi for forever, and have zero 'product' complaints that would make me want to "Avoid the Pi'. If anything, I have plans for more. Again, the price - A Zero2W is $15 MSRP. For $15, You can put that in everything. A Pi4 is $35. Its just a great deal.

**sorry, that's just being human. **

@CashewNut me too. The top comment is always a joke. 5 out of the top 8 also attempts at jokes. Its not a discussion anymore.

Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)

Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits. Our law allows someone else to either.. make bits that can fit in that shape OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.

"BUT they copied!" - it doesn't have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don't even have to use the 'special shape' just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to 'ensure a monopoly'. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.

Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me the list of 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.

In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them -- well... that's not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.

It's like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.

tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can't charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they'd probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.

1. I'm old enough to have been down this road a dozen times, and it has always ended in tears. The ones I bought into either came into the market too early, too beta, or too late, or just weren't able to see it through or abandoned hope mid journey.

2. I think it has a great chance to be a great thing.

Why? The magic isn't the Framework Ecosystem. It's one thing, un-crapified modularity. The reason most of us can afford to keep a car working isn't because of the great Mazda or Ford ecosystem of parts. Its because the un-crapified modularity of those parts. The designs are "open" (they're not in the libré sense, but they are simple re-make or recreate ). That is why most of us can keep our cars going. If I need a headlight, or an alternator, or a throttle-position sensor, not only does Mazda make/have the part, there are a dozen other people who make the part. I not only get a replacement, but I get choices in a open market in a range of prices and qualities.
I imagine in 2032, even if the company Framework has disappeared, there will be a lady in New Jersey making inexpensive replacement modules. That is a 'good thing'.

Its no accident everything on an Apple device is soldered down. If they made cars they'd grind down all the bolt heads and embed the engine in epoxy. It's their ethos. If my macbook ssd goes bad, all they can do for me is sell me a new one. The beauty of the Framework is that each module can be replaced. So no, the typical user is not going to completely upgrade their laptop in 8 years. (but they could) But, most will want to replace that one broken part on their otherwise perfectly good laptop. Another way to think about it, lets say I have a 10 year old car, worth $5k. To replace every part might truly cost me $35,000. But the way chance works, it's rate to actually need to replace every part. And the parts that need replacing are usually relatively inexpensive.

Some years ago Consumer Reports Magazine had a section where they'd list the costs of all the replacement parts of a new car. Was interesting. IIRC it was about 4x the cost of the car.

late to the party. Q: What is it that corporations will not tolerate about online commmunity, crowdsourced news and info?? Digg, Delicious, Slashdot, Reddit.. all eaten and changed?

Silly thoughts...

• the life in a discussion site is the exchange of ideas/thoughts. For that to happen users need to actually listen, process, and discuss. Reddit's structure has discouraged that for years.

• signal to noise ratio - in order for the discussion board site to be useful, there's some magic signal to noise ratio that has to be maintained. Otherwise, its some style of chaos.

• Why I left - in a technical subreddit, someone asked a technical question 'Who still uses XYZ, and why?, I never quite understood it', I gave a short primer on how it worked, with a couple analogies. The OP replied testily ' I don't need anyone to explain to me how it works.'. And then testily to other helpful responses, and then deleted their acct.

• The experts left most of the technical subs I am in 5-10 years ago. My guess is that discussions are mostly noise: things I could have learned if I read the instructions, or how can I do this without understanding anything about it.

• somewhere I read that the upvote/downvote counts on the front page are made up... modified by reddit.. so that people don't know what they need to do to get to the front. By adding this, they gave themselves full editorial control of the front page. It's downhill from there.

late to the party, but I had OperaGX do a clever evil thing recently - I have an old machine running MacOS 10.14 (for reasons), I had GX up, and I alt-tab'd and noticed there was the "don't symbol" (ghostbusters) over the OperaGX Icon. I thought, "that can't be right". I'm running GX right now. I double checked, and I was using GX with several windows open. But the symbol was right - they had Updated OperaGX that I WAS running, WHILE I was running it, to a version that WOULDN'T work on the computer I was on. I eventually restarted GX, and got a 'You can't use OperaGX with this version of MacOS". Jerks.

I dug around, and very roughly, the .app file is not the App. They use a folder off in Library to store the actual pieces of the app, and it there is a few different pieces, and the .app file points to the actual executables.

Anyway it was fun while it lasted. Never again.

[ confirmation bias at play. you have switched to bluetooth. it meets or exceeds all your needs. you don't see much public indication to the contrary. you figure bluetooth is the best. ]

1. simplicity the cable just works. no configuration. no pairing .un pairing, figuring why it worked yesterday

2. Audio quality - bluetooth is lossy. we just were given AptX lossless in 2021 ( another confirmation bias ) "Sounds great to me" "I can't hear the difference".
   2 things are both possibly true though: I can't hear the difference. Other people hear a big difference. this seems impossible to some people. As if their senses are the apogee of human sense.

3. lag. new codecs lower latency, but lag lag lag. You couldn't possibly use your device as a synth/music instrument and 'play' the lag is far to great. Same with games.

4. whats the big deal. This is a bias for the plug users - would it hurt to keep it? we've always had it. The work is already done. Its already baked in the cake, why you gotta take it out?

5. Investment - I have really good headphones. I have really good earbuds. Yes there are adapters but they are finicky exactly when you want them to just work. They inevitably break. They often downgrade the sound - I have 3 usb to audio adapters for android that all hiss for no reason.

The issue is that when the marketers are selling us a 'clean vision of the future' they purposefully gloss over the things they are taking away. Then they paint the people who feel pain because of the change as neanderthals who wouldn't know better if it bit them. When they do know better. They had better (for them) and progress made it worse (for them). To which the marketers generally say - you should be someone else.

... its the scale.

we've had photograph manipulation since the photograph. we've not had the ease and scale which we are about to have. and its not the same.

anyone can open the box at the corner and mess with a traffic light. and has been able to since we had them. now give me the ability to mess with all the traffic lights in a city.

the difference is scale.

same. reddit is populated with users who's comments are generally indistinguishable from those of a 12-15 year old.

why don't they ever add the "... in this survey" part at the end?

One thing to note - The science is still calculating. Yet. SpaceX (and presumably others) are allowed to continue and increase what they're doing. This is the bass ackwards way to protect future us.

Its the same mentality as driving in a random direction for 20 minutes while someone looks in the car for the map on the off chance that when you get the map open you'll be where you wanted to be anyway.

It has the potential (and at this point, just the potential) for planet level changes, and is being done by one group. Should I, a random dude, be able to do something that might possibly affect the entire planet, and the planet as a whole just have to wait and see how it turns out?

The hopeful thought that its probably nothing, before anyone can prove that it's probably nothing, makes a bet where the short term wins are mine, but any long term losses are everyone else's.

found this in video form.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAvUFD68NEQ

Media Contact: Office of Media Relations MediaRelations@fcc.gov For Immediate Release FCC VOTES TO REQUIRE CABLE AND SATELLITE TV PRICING TRANSPARENCY New ‘All-In’ Pricing Rules Will Address Consumers’ Confusion on Hidden Fees in Cable and Satellite TV Billing

WASHINGTON, March 14, 2024—The Federal Communications Commission today adopted new rules requiring cable and satellite TV providers to specify the “all-in” price clearly and prominently for video programming service in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills. The FCC aims to eliminate the misleading practice of describing video programming costs as a tax, fee, or surcharge. This updated “all-in” pricing format allows consumers to make informed choices, including the ability to comparison shop among competitors and to compare programming costs against alternative programming providers, including streaming services. TV providers often use deceptive junk fees to hide the real price of their services. The FCC is putting an end to this form of price masking, increasing competition, and reducing confusion among consumers. These new rules require cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to state the total cost of video programming service clearly and prominently, including broadcast retransmission consent, regional sports programming, and other programming-related fees, as a prominent single line item on subscribers’ bills and in promotional materials. The record demonstrates that charges and fees for video programming provided by cable and DBS providers are often obscured in misleading promotional materials and bills, which causes significant and costly confusion for consumers. These new rules continue a series of consumer-focused proposals to combat junk fees and support transparency for consumers. In addition to this “all-in” pricing, the Commission is preparing to upcoming launch of the mandatory Broadband Consumer Labels and has proposed to eliminate early termination fees from cable and satellite TV providers. Action by the Commission March 14, 2024 by Report and Order (FCC 24-29). Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Starks and Gomez approving. Commissioners Carr and Simington dissenting. Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Carr, Starks, and Simington issuing separate statements. MB Docket No. 23-203

Here's a subtle thing...we say both the manufacturers and consumers have choices.

The manufacturer has the choice between all the thousands of possible ways to deliver a product, and picks one or two. A consumer has the choice between those two. ( or do without )

Those are all valid choices, but they are not alone of equal weight

proven. there's a list of new inventions that were proven safe in 1950. Do we think they were just idiots back then?

Also its about directing cash from the sale of 'Golden rice' far more than about having these folks afford good food.

https://grain.org/en/article/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground

I'm no expert but these folk are almost

While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household. The euphoria created by the Green Revolution greatly stifled research to develop and promote these efforts, and the introduction of golden rice will further compromise them. Golden rice is merely a marketing event. But international and national research agendas will be taken by it.

The promoters of golden rice say that they do not want to deprive the poor of the right to choose and the potential to benefit from golden rice. But the poor, and especially poor farmers, have long been deprived of the right to choose their means of production and survival. Golden rice is not going to change that, and nor will any other corporately-pushed GE crop. Hence, any further attempts at the commercial exploitation of hunger and malnutrition through the promotion of genetically modified foods should be strongly resisted.

167532282 :-) good times

shady is as shady does. on the street or in a corner office.

Fake? but... https://www.forbes.com/sites/danieladelorenzo/2023/11/19/italys-cultivated-meat-ban-just-a-strategic-move-ahead-eu-elections-ngo-say/?sh=7b4fe8c21323

This is a bit of misdirection. This is a patent issue not a stolen IP issue.
What's the difference? IP is secret. Patents are public. Published by the Government for all to see.

This would lead the reader to believe that the issue at hand is Apple was trying to steal secrets from Masimo.

The issue at hand is a patent violation: Apple using Masimo patents in its product. Masimo claims 5 patents were infringed ( used without permission or licensing ). On Jan 10th, the Judge found that Apple had indeed infringed on a Masimo Blood Oxygen Patent.

In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, “Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers,” but in its asserted “commitment” to not sue farmers over “inadvertent,” and “trace” amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, “the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”

When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbor’s truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. “Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser,” Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. “In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called ‘piling on,’” he concludes. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/763/family-farmers-amplify-complaint-against-monsantos-gmos-reinforcing-their-arguments-with-two-dozen-additional-plaintiffs

They don't own anything, the modified something that came with the planet, and they want everyone on the planet to be forced to use it, and them to pay them for the privilege. I've never been to Msto HQ but I'd give Dollars to Donuts that that is printed on the wall.

Yes, this is a bit outside the screen problem, but it is pertinent to car UI. Buttons/Joysticks give a form of tactile feedback, they don't give positional feedback. Take a button. Pushing it does give tactile feedback (she feels that she pushed the button), but it's quite possible that the button wasn't pushed enough or long enough to register the push, same with joystick up/down. Flipping a switch for example is different. The position changes, and latches. She is certain that her intentions (turn on the light) were either carried out or not, because the switch with either be in position one or two. Buttons/joysticks require a second evaluation, to check that the button knows it was pushed. It's a subtle difference, but serious. Sliding the gearshift all the way forward, we just know it's done. Likewise pulling up on the handle, hearing the ratchet sound, I know that my parking brake is on.

What about the one sided ability to change a contract??

A year from now Roku pop up says "Click to Accept" , the text says **"this contract means you'll have to give us your first born child? ** My reasoning says if they can do one then they can do the other. There is nothing that would prevent them from adding 'fees', or 'subscriptions' or simply turning off the device. (!)

This is egregious. We bought something. In normal commerce, the contract was set in stone at that moment. The seller can't roll up 2 years later, change the contract, force you to agree before you can use your device, and then say , well maybe if you beg, you can opt out.

headline: "We're still asking some people what they think should be done about the harm they caused."

must be nice to get asked what you think you you might want to do about it.

1. In terms of terms of service -this is not in the terms of service. Its a secret social contract. What do we know about the lockset on our doors? not much. What do we know about the company that made it's ability to make keys? not much. There is a trust that the creator will know things that we wont, and for everyone's betterment, they go to the grave with that knowledge.

Security is always temporary. Security puts an obstacle in the path of the treasure, it doesn't seal off the treasure. That's not how the real world can work. Bury it in concrete, seal it in steel. If the owner can get it, with enough time, the theif can too. Perfect security isn't real.

2. Should they be forced - how can you? There are a thousand vulnerabilities to every product, its just that we don't usually care so much. This is the idea behind many openSource ideas. We all know. In reality, businesses make and keep secrets.

3. It already is a social contract. It just seems important because now it's concerning something we care about.

4. This is the struggle of law and order. To create laws that are never self-contradicting. Laws that don't need exceptions. It's hard math. Each society decides what IT values, and then makes laws around those values. Every fireman has a protected right to not simply break in to my home, but destroy my home in order to save lives inside it. It happens every day. They don't come with keys, they come with battering rams and axes.
   two things are different though- We trust them, based on years and years and years of faithful service. They are honest. the second, is their actions always leave Clear evidence that they did something. I wouldn't come home and wonder if the fire department has been in the house. I would see the broken window and smashed in door and know. With the phones - we don't know if anyone was in, and this is very very different. There's nothing that prevents the phone from flashing a bright red warning that its been opened from the inside - except if the person disables the alarm :-) but its possible.

17 years ago Apple stated that they have a 'kill switch' for the apps, and this is similar. What do you do if a million phones go wild. If you could have set up a kill switch, would you regret not doing it.

What does it mean? It means that people who use these things HAVE to put trust in the person who made it. In the same way I have to trust in VW or FORD if I sit in one. There is no using the thing, without putting a tremendous amount of trust in the person who made it.

most definitely that. not the other. The guy who played Pavel Checkov, the Enterprise's navigator. Not the noted author born in 1860.

Space Weather News - Dr. Tamitha Skov - 22 Jan 2024 https://www.yewtu.be.com/watch?v=41LGqYbxsvk

its a good warning, but there's no new info here.

• the scanners are usually not technically x-ray, some are mm wave, some are xray backscatter.
• the technology can see through clothes and produce a grainy bw image of a naked person
• the tech is very closed, and the customers are NDA'd into not letting the public know anything
• the enhanced privacy changes don't change the device - its still taking naked pictures of people, its just doesn't show them to the operator.
• before you look, as of a couple years ago there are just about 6 images from these devices out there on the internet. (iirc, there is a researcher who bought one off of ebay to study, but lost track of their work. )
• its in use in border patrol type operations to see into the trailers, trucks and cars.
• no one can prove they aren't keeping a database of naked people. ;-)

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pia-tsa-ait.pdf

https://www.rapiscan-ase.com/resource-center/technology/z-backscatter-x-ray-imaging

https://electrek.co/2023/11/29/car-dealers-falsely-claim-voice-customers-push-slower-electric-car-adoption/

However, what those dealers are leaving out of their argument is that BEVs are not the only vehicles sitting unsold on their lots.

In fact, new-vehicle inventory is at a two-year high, according to Cox Automotive research.

As of the start of November, new-vehicle inventory volume in the US was sitting at a record 2.4 million units. It is safe to say that those are mostly gasoline-powered vehicles since the inventory level is currently higher than the number of EVs that the US will produce all year.

The truth is that the current interest rates have affected all automotive sales, EVs or otherwise.

It’s true some of those people who placed reservations for EVs last year are reconsidering their purchases now, as highlighted by the >group of dealers, but that’s not because they are not interested in EVs anymore. It’s because they can’t afford the several hundred >dollars more for the monthly payments now, thanks to high interest rates.

Some wont Stock them https://electrek.co/2023/05/09/us-car-dealers-evs/

Sure is nice of Google to change things for the better of the world. I'm sure they stand to gain nothing from this. < /sarcasm>

we can disagree about much greater things. humans have and have figured it out.

we can disagree about eating animals. for me it may be a sacrilege and for my neighbor it may be lunch. I am under no obligation to agree with her, nor is she under any obligation to agree with me.

She can think I am insane for protecting a dumb animal.

I can think she is insane for destroying life.

She can offend my morality. And I hers. This is disagreement. We do not have to agree, and we have every right to our understanding of the universe.

I will avoid mentioning other real-er areas because it gets people all in a tizzy and makes this kind of discussion take far too long. but if we extrapolate just a bit, disagreeing with another person, even about deeply held beliefs is part of what we do in civilization.

Win7 and Win10.