“Titles”? It’s not a title, it’s a file name that contains a lot of details about the rip. In the post’s example it tells you that it’s the movie Split, ripped from blu ray, in 1080p, with audio tracks in Italian and English, and encoded in x265. You probably would hate a lot more not being able to tell the difference between split.mp4 recorded on my cellphone in the movie theater and split.mp4 in ultra hd 4k ripped straight from Netflix.
Don’t forget that when someone is talking about the average American “owning stocks” what they really mean is “has a retirement account that works in a way they don’t fully understand, which includes securities such as stocks, that they are not legally allowed to touch until they are 60”.
Anyone who tries to insinuate that the way average Americans “own stocks” is in any manner comparable to the way the wealthiest do, should honestly literally be put in the stocks where commoners can hurl tomatoes at them.
I hate this article because of the title. I clicked this honestly because I was expecting to learn something outrageous about the pricing, but Microsoft hasn’t even announced it yet, just that it’s not going to be free. The journalist here could have just wrote in the title that it’s going to cost money, and left it at that. If they wanted to do a real good job, within the article they could even share what the Windows 7 version of the program cost people to help give a sense for what we should expect. But they didn’t even do that.
Anyway, here’s the latest information from Microsoft:
Do you ever think about how if every sports team was structured like the Green Bay Packers, there would be no conflict of interest with the city funding the development or renovation of a stadium for the team? What’s even more fun is that the NFL expressly prohibits any team from joining the league which is not privately owned. Literally the only exception is the Green Bay Packers and they only got that exception because they’re so old.
I agree with the essence of your point but personally I’d never use the word “wrong”, only incomplete. Seems weird to call Newton’s laws “wrong” when the only reason that we are willing to accept GR is that it reduces to Newton.
I mean I never told you not to rename them lmfao. You just said “I can’t stand the titles on torrents” like people just made these really long filenames for shits and giggles. Also lots of torrent sites will feature several different kinds of rips. It’s not very convenient on the back end to have all rips of the same movie have the same file name.
Also “calm down”? Idk I thought I gave a pretty chill explanation of why things are the way they are but sorry if it didn’t come across that way.
It’s gotta be deadbeat don
I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:
There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.
Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.
The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.
I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.
“Could” as if there’s a possibility it will respect your privacy lmfao
The license looks to be Creative Commons non-commercial, which means it isn’t open source, only source-available.
To be clear: the license chosen prohibits anyone who forks floorp and includes these extra bits from trying to make money from it, but the developer still intends on publishing the source code so it can still be scrutinized.
I like 10 months each with 6 weeks of 6 days each for a total of 360 days and a 5 day holiday at the end of every year (6 days during a leap year)
But Jesse really has opened my eyes to the possibility of a lunisolar calendar.
Why is bringing in a relief crew not an option?
What you’re describing is literally what it means for general relativity to reduce to Newtonian mechanics. You can literally derive Newton’s equations by applying calculus to general relativity. In fact, if you ever get a physics degree, you’ll have to learn how to do it.
In the early days […] we often received a question along the lines of “I love the product and what Proton stands for, but how do I know you will still be around to protect my data 10 years from now?” […] Ten years and 100 million accounts later, we would like to think we have proven the point with our track record, but actually the question is just as relevant today as it was 10 years ago[.] […] Proton was not created to get rich[, …] but rather to address the […] problem of surveillance capitalism. […] Proton has always been about the mission and putting people ahead of profits […] and there is no price at which we would compromise our integrity. Frankly speaking, […] if the goal was to sell for a bunch of money, we could have done that long ago. […] Most businesses are built to be sold — we built Proton to serve the mission.
My problem is there’s literally ways you can organize a business that makes literally impossible to legally do these things. When businesses say these things, but don’t acknowledge the reality that they could always recharter the business in such a manner where you don’t just have to trust them to behave with no recourse if they don’t, I always have to add “but we still will continue to reserve the right to sell you out but pinky promise we won’t ever do it”
I think that if any company wants to write off any intellectual property that they have the copyrights to, it should have to become public domain
I prefer mine:
literally every model is a metaphor and not a true representation of the actual phenomenon it’s modeling.
The fact alone that they were storing your name in the first place means that was always possible. Frankly, this isn’t anything to be concerned about anymore than being concerned about trusting literally any private business that doesn’t publicly document their data retention practices and also subject themselves to routine audits. You should be concerned about that though by the way. But my advice is to not wait around for it to become obvious.
I personally have not found Kagi’s default search results to be all that impressive, contrary to what most users seem to feel. I don’t know. When ddg and Google fail me, I will try Kagi and I think maybe only once or twice has it actually made finding what I’m looking for any easier.
I will mention though, you can do a lot of personalization on the results unlike other engines. So maybe if I took the time to customize, I might feel differently.
Uh not really… he started PayPal and then sold himself like 1 million shares at $0.001 (a tenth of a penny!) a share. Did you even read the article? Literally anyone who starts a business has to inject capital. It’s not gambling any more than any other person simply starting a business.
Also if you do read the article. You will learn it is not just Peter thiel, but many many many wealthy individuals who have done similar things. You say “the ultra wealthy would love to have Roth IRAs!” Well guess what: they do and it’s often a substantial portion of their fortune.
So what is your point now?
Yet again, we lack the only detail anyone actually cares about: how does Apple plan on actually limiting this functionality to the EU?
It’s difficult for me to imagine how they can comply with this but only for EU customers in a manner which can’t be easily circumvented. It kind of bothers me that journalists just parrot “these changes will not be coming to jurisdictions outside of the EU” uncritically, seemingly just completely taking for granted the idea that there’s not going to be any way to benefit from this if you don’t live in the EU.
If it’s exploitation make them give all of it back that they already took.
This article is about non-petroleum oil based plastics and how they degrade in a more environmentally friendly manner than plastics based on petroleum. It’s not about genetically engineering bacteria to eat traditional plastics. I agree that that is a dangerous idea that people rarely fully reason through the consequences of. But this article is not that.
Retrocomputing hobbyists and collectors.
They don’t have to set foot on American soil for a boat to take them away though. by the way, I can totally accept the possibility that it’s some kind of ridiculous immigrations or customs issue. But if it is, you can’t really infer it just from this article and I’m a little annoyed by that. it seems like the obvious question to ask.
Not super familiar with EU law, but it was my understanding that a company that wants to be allowed to operate in the EU can’t just start violating an EU citizen’s EU granted rights just because aren’t literally geographically inside the EU at the time of the rights violation.
In other words, it’s my understanding that Apple would be liable for damages if, for instance, an EU citizen on vacation suddenly lost access to alternative app stores and such.
I actually didn’t make any estimation of anything in my comment. I just don’t want people to think that this is good enough.
I’m curious to hear the philosophical reasons that lead you to feel so strongly about this.
Yet another consequence of humanity’s insatiable desire for animal products.
No he definitely has a pretty substantial real estate portfolio. However, most properties bearing his name are just licensing it and are not owned by him. It’s a good point to make though. I was thinking myself that it will be funny if this makes it very apparent how much Trump has sold his own name out.
Personally, when I read their blog post, I didn’t feel like I was being lied to. I felt like I was reading the words of a person who has not spent very much time speaking English. I do agree, however, that the language they happened to use is not entirely representative of what they’re doing, but I don’t think it was malicious.
Honestly the whole point of capitalism is that the owners of the business get to decide what their moral responsibility is and if you don’t like that then maybe we should try something else
I do five day holiday for end of the year to account for the extra days like the Mayans did but I really like your idea of spreading four of them out to the solstices and equinoxes!
I personally think that “all models are wrong” does nothing to stop people from simply thinking in terms of practical inevitabilities, when it’s actually extremely important to understand that figuring out what’s “actually going on” was never even the concern of science in the first place.
You say in your original comment to me “the ultra wealthy would love to benefit from Roth IRAs!” Well guess what: they do and it’s often a substantial portion of their fortune.
So what is your point now?
If any publisher (in this case, a lemmy instance) does not require the author to consciously consent to assigning the copyright of the comments to the publisher or some other entity, then by default the copyright of the comment is retained by the author who is allowed to write literally whatever licenses they like and as many licenses as they like for however many people they want.
https://gizmodo.com/who-actually-owns-your-content-when-you-post-it-to-the-1819953868
As I said “Rich people would LOVE to own more in the same way and pay less taxes.”
So they’d love to do a thing that they have all demonstrated they are perfectly capable of doing? What is even the value of such a comment?
It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.