A Renegade Trawler, Hunted for 10,000 Miles by Vigilantes

Wow, that was a pretty substandard PR response. They talk about the complexity of their policies but don't talk about enforcement or performance.

Note/JFYI: The link goes to a pretty slim article that has an auto-playing video.

Nope - I actually quite like it in this instance. I don't tend to like it in the general case though, as it's usually done poorly.

Yes, is there a logical extension to "UX" design which includes "non-user in proximity experience"? NUIPX perhaps?

This sounds like user error. If you want to be sure, you can call the number on the back of your card and they can tell you for certain if you were messing up the payment.

I had the exact same problem yesterday, I was reading my CVV upside down.

I hope I don't come across as too patronizing, but Amex cards do trip end users up sometimes- the CVV number being 4 digits, and on the front of the card, unlike Visa & MasterCard... I've personally made the mistake of reading the wrong numbers off my Amex cards a few times.

> We can setup manageable and productive fisheries that not only can sustain populations but also continue to reproduce and be healthy.

We're not, really, though. :/

As long as the demand is highest for the least sustainable fish, someone will haul out and net it for us.

The Turbot War off the southeast coast of Canada (Newfoundland) is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

Canada almost went to war with Spain over it and German and Spanish military ships were patrolling off the Canadian coast.

The Spanish fleet were scooping up whatever they wanted and the smug hypocritical EU claimed it was superior to Canada regarding the environment.

I don't see adblocks at being the problem; adblock is /mandatory/ these days on the web; for the 0.01% website that deserve the revenue, the rest is there to abuse it, put autoplay flash, full screen popups, tracking cookies and all they can possibly /can/ on you.

The other problem is the 'monetisation'; it seems everyone around wants £10 a month. Sorry, I might pay £10/m for netflix that I use often, but do I want to pay that to everyone that I use twice a month, or even sometime a lot less? Well, nope. Not only that, but registering and paying makes you even more marketable, where your viewing habits and so on can get sold on to 'partners'.

I don't /mind/ paying for content, and I don't /mind/ ads, it's just the abusive nature of how it's done these days that I mind.

> but you don't really see these same people evangelize subscriptions or otherwise supporting these places.

Wait, I totally do that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9697153). I already subscribe to NYTimes, Spotify, Netflix, etc. and I'd love to pay a reasonable monthly fee to Google, HN, whoever else if it means getting to use their product without being spied on or sold to. Due to a sort of path determinism, everyone just assumed that everything online must be free without giving the traditional model a fair shake.

Has anyone experimented with micropayments? I'd pay a dollar or two to read an article like this now and then, but I couldn't see myself paying $200 a year for a subscription.

The good solution is subscription fees. There is no other good solution, including advertising. A media company that can't make money on subscriptions is doomed to fail (I consider turning into a clickbait-ey shithole a failure)

I block 100% of ads on desktop and mobile. I also spend ~ $350 a year (that's $30 a month) on media subscriptions, not counting individual movies, shows, books, etc. This is a sustainable model for the companies that I subscribe to.

People's "entitlement" is a complete red herring. The problem is the semantics of monetizing non-scarce, non-rivalrous goods in a digital age are open-ended. Complaining about free-riding is a distraction and demagoguery.

My local paper has a subscription website, which I've paid for at times, but the thing is, they still blast you with annoying popup and animated ads even as a paid subscriber. No thanks, you can't have it both ways.

Briefly: the NYT has no true peers, which is why it's called "The Paper of Record." Nationally, globally and locally, it plays an indispensable civic role, to say nothing of its value qua "content on the internet." Much of their reporting shapes the conversations that define many, many dimensions of contemporary life, and if they were to disappear quite a bit of important truth would go uncovered. Journalism is not merely something to be consumed, it is a necessary part of the social ecosystem. The New York Times is too big to fail, and is easily among the most important corporations of any size, period, despite it's small capitalization.

edit: for what it's worth, my father was a journalism professor and sometimes-head of one of the top journalism programs in the US, so I grew up hearing a lot about this sort of thing!

I think part of the New York Times' problem is that they're trying to keep both parts of the business alive, but the two ad channels compete with each other. At some point I would hope that the family controlled board decides to go all in on being a digital-only press. Everyone works remote, with small regional offices as necessary. They retain their artists, photographers, editors, writers, and other content producing staff. They retain their existing technology team that works with the editorial team on the cool features as was posted.

The print business and assets are spun out as a separate company providing white label newsprinting services (perhaps as The New York Times Print Services Company), and eventually sold.

I think they can continue to run the dual mode business for 5-10 more years, but eventually the numbers on print won't make sense anymore.

I don't disagree with this. That's a hard nut to crack.

There's lots of muckracking you can do in your free time these days. (Look at eg the plane spotters uncovering CIA torture flights.)

I'm putting a gist together for you of places to start when I'm done working today.

The Sea Shepherds were cutting their illegal nets and taking their buoys, and were reporting them to the local authorities whenever they approached a harbor. The fishing boat had no way of selling its catch or taking on more supplies without first losing the Sea Shepherds tailing them.

They do their best to interfere with their fishing practices, following them around and pulling up their illegal nets, and sending their location to Interpol.

It's likely that whatever remaining shred of legitimacy such operations have is highly dependent on not having high-def video of their operations on TV and the internet as well.

As the article states, what they do that is most harmful to them is to follow them around and notify any port they attempt to dock at, so they can't get supplies (esp fuel) without risking arrest.

Honsestly, if this is something you are interested in, you should read the article. It's quite good and covers all the details of how the ship is wanted by Interpol and where these activists get the legal authority for what they do out there.

You could probably achieve what you want with an extension.