avidruntime

> In the past, but today fewer people are getting paid less this way.

There has never been more content creators making a living off their content than there is today. Look no further than these enormous platforms with ad rev sharing options for contributors producing UGC.

> Would you rather resurrect IP law, or find some new way to pay creators, then finish killing it?

Uploading content online and getting a cut of ad revenue fits this criteria, no?

The idea that we would scrap IP law and rewrite it from scratch is the very definition of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO.

They don't think its okay, as evidenced by this submission predictably being flagged. Also predictably, they will not be here to defend or explain, either.

I get your point but its hard not to look past the fact that only 1 of the 4 mentioned mediums have real time, user-personalized, opaque algorithmic endless scrolling, and a disproportionately higher rate of addiction.

Personally I think the hanlon's razor approach is an intellectually lazy thought terminating cliche that provides cover to people/groups who do act with malice.

A US administration sympathetic to Russia stands to benefit from higher oil prices.

The "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago" in question is an explainer on how a 19th century Super El Nino wiped out over 3% of the world's population, mostly in Asia, despite the fact that these regions had experienced famines and droughts at numerous points in their prior history. The video then asks the question, "Why was this so much more deadly?"

The explanation posits that this was only possible due to the multiplier of the rapidly expanding British empire. It is not posited as British/white people are bad, it is posited as society, politics and trade creating a multiplier effect. The whole point of this section in the video is to setup the final chapter of the video, asking the question, "Could this happen again?", which feels like a valid question given that society, politics, and trade have exponentially evolved since the 19th century.

This section of the video is portrayed so agnostically that I felt compelled to reply to your vague criticism.

Here is the video linked to the timestamp of the aforementioned section, which is only around 2 minutes long, so others can pass their own judgement: https://youtu.be/69o-8Mtd3Kc&t=330

Not sure how you can be here for the science if you're not willing to be here for the history.

>My carrier does not allow transferring eSIMs between phones

That is insane.

There's also just a growing number of the simple contrarian perspective mixed with the growing "anything new is bad" cultural lens.

Always loved the Surface Duo. I really liked the separation of the screens too; felt like dual monitors vs. ultrawide. It also forced the technology to focus the valueprop on multitasking versus more immersive/more bigger/more better. I'm curious about the iPhonr Duo; I have not been a huge fan of iPadOS or iOS, the former making me often wish for a macOS experience and the later having felt slower and less responsive over time (mostly due to animation speeds/aesthetic choices rather than a hardware defect).

Ah. about 30 seconds ago they mentioned in the (still ongoing) keynote they said it was removed to recoup space for internals. I recall the 3.5mm jack removal being motivated along similar lines. I wonder, assuming the space where the SIM slot would've gone was filled with increased battery size, what that delta would in duration. I'm from the US, cursory reading about global eSIM adoption surprised me (only 30% and most of that 30% is in the US vs. my assumption of >50%). What prevents adoption elsewhere? Consumer demand for swapping? Curious to hear your POV on it.

Apple has been doing eSIM for something like 4 years now.

How is it superior when viewing w/o an account is impossible? From my POV this was the moment X/Twitter completely rejected its stated mission of being a town square.

Cant seem to get milkdrop to work on the binary installed via cask on arm macOS. Everything else feels very snappy and fun

The OP's first link is a demo, their second link is the source.

Thank you, I thought I was first, I even searched for other posts, evidently not well enough.

Doesn't the FEC already regulate contribution limits? The debate is where the line is and when the line comes into play. Society is a constant negotiation between individual freedoms and collective safety/social order. You have already ceded some rights in this vein. It is not controversial to see an unfairness in some citizens/their vehicles having many magnitudes more influence over the common citizen. Citizens United is a conduit to a standard that can be hacked by money. Arguably, the dilution of your own political leverage in this paradigm is a greater inhibition to your rights than a stricter contribution limit ever could be, in the long term.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The real world doesn't require us to negate the commentary that the ultra wealthy people/corporations could be doing a lot more good than they're currently doing on the basis that the government is spending money irresponsibly/against the greater good.

There are no simple explanations in this arena. All campaigns min/max messaging for sought after demographics to maximize votes. One could argue that the collaboration brought on by Elon/X gave the Trump 2 campaign some of the most sophisticated frameworks for data driven, atomized political messaging/monitoring ever seen in federal electoral history. That is a monumentally effective effort to convert and acquire voters-- I advise avoiding such simplistic explanations, especially when they double as thought terminating cliches.

> There is no master plan, just greed.

This is a thought terminating cliche. This is just the latest move in a long term strategic effort to undermine Canada's sovereignty. Zoom out, and that in it of itself is part of an even broader strategic effort to reorganize alliances which built the world order.

Everywhere there are criticisms of Trump, his administration, and their goals, there is always this commentary which not only fails to serve as an accurate representation of present situations, but more importantly, it serves to distract from the chronology of events which led us here, blinding the broader conversation from creating inferences of what will happen next which stifles the conversation from its most natural next reply: What are they actually doing, and what do we do if it does not benefit us?

You are underthinking this.

When I was in photography class in college, I created backplates in photoshop for still life portraits of small trinkets I was photographing. The photos were taken on black and white film and developed in the campus dark room. Led to some impressive photos. In our class's critiques, I explained how it was done. A lot of peers went from impressed to meh'd. The point: the black and white film laundered the new-age manipulation, and a digitally signed photo from a modern camera remains vulnerable to the same premise.

Apple's throttling was an undisclosed optimization that was controversial because it was not disclosed. The optimization itself was not controversial. It was not premature either. If the battery's measurable levels (impedance, current, voltage, etc.) fell out of nominal range, then throttling occurred. FWIW I somewhat resent having to 'defend' Apple here, but your narrative frame here has too much speculation for a situation finalized in fact in 2017, almost 10 years ago.

How was the US Gov colluding? My recollection of the twitter files was it largely blew out of proportion (for non-tech aligned audiences) that Twitter received tips from CISA regarding misinformation/disinformation and Twitter decided whether to take action on accounts, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

I work in the television industry, so does my spouse. We both have gotten offers by recruiters from services like this. While this author's experience is hard to relate to in many ways, their description of the economic situation is not far off. There is enormous pain right now in the television industry, particularly for the below the line workers. This stems from a myriad of factors in confluence. A very incomplete list: (1) the ongoing mergers of media companies and the downstream effects this has on decision makers on the buyer/network side of things, (2) the destabilization of television economics due to the long term effects of internet video (streamers and independent content creators alike), (3) a cultural mood shift within the consumer consensus of quality and the downstream effects on a consumer's willingness to participate as a consumer at all. Thats a lot of huge pieces on the board moving in ways that were hard to imagine in the not so distant past.

My point in outlining this is to scratch the surface and paint a picture on the systemic damage to this ecosystem and as a result you have people who have been working in a collaborative video workforce who no longer are able to find work. I've seen probably 75% of my colleagues and peers move on to other pastures, parlaying their skills into other careers, often starting in fields where your entry level positions are typically held by people 10, maybe 20 years younger. And of course, some have it easier than others. The AI training gigs come at an extremely opportune time (for them) and typically offer very tantalizing wages (in the form of an AI generated message from a LinkedIn recruiter who only replies with a link to the company's registration page). And if you're months without work and you use some of that unwanted free time to think introspectively about the offer, its easy to walk away with a sense that, eventually, the right talent will meet the right training method and produce the software package that actually kills your employable skillset. Its a horrible feeling. Its a scary feeling. Its a feeling of being on the wrong side of a window that is in the process of closing.

So while you may find it easy to lose sympathy for this particular writer, I would implore you not to lose sympathy for the broader class within and to not lose sight of where this article sits in context to the bigger story. Without a shadow of a doubt, her experience is the norm within the industry right now. I think it is worthy of recognition because what is happening will come for many other fields/areas of expertise in the future. What you describe as one person's bumbling misadventure rhymes quite a bit with other people's struggle to make ends meet in a rapidly evolving/devolving market.

It kind of can, but trading futures is trading termed contracts, kind of like options, but a bit stranger (and you can buy options for futures contracts too!) For a retail trader, you definitely are not in a buy and hold/invest mindset. Often people use futures as a hedge or for locking in prices for physical delivery- it serves a very real world problem.

Not a fan of the serif trend in recent years in general, but within your UX it makes content hard to read. I understand the appeal in chasing the premium look for taglines, company name, headers, but a blanket application of it works towards an anti-premium aesthetic, IMO.

Hitting the back button results in the WeSearch modal appearing every time on FF. Makes an otherwise snappy website feel slow.

I'd say venture away from social media functionality. I personally struggle to see a news site with emoji reacts as a serious vendor. The "Hot" label also feels a lot like tiktok's opaque "heating" technique of nudging things to virality. Knowing that this platform is new and seeing the "hot" label suggests an early reddit approach at faking it until you make it. The point: the more I look, the more I go "huh" instead of "cool!"

Finally, in this era of state sponsored disinformation campaigns like the Doppelganger campaign, I personally struggle to trust a platform who's owners/organization are not known, and I say that knowing that part of your product is the anonymous commenting. There is a vibe-codey aesthetic at play here that in combination with the former, I can't engage with the site beyond a short period of cautious observation.

Best of luck to you

We have different interpretations of what suicide means

Voluntarily choosing to not spend money in X related orgs ≠ using services that use X related orgs. As a consumer, our options to vote with our dollar is limited, but that doesn't make it pointless. Real life is not binary and the sentiment that one cannot criticize a system which they partake in is a thought terminating cliche. One only needs to ask "for who does this reflexive thought terminating cliche benefit the most" to find the lede.

a platform wide ad hominem? where is your hacker curiosity?

Why engage at all if you're going to engage like this?

co-opted? The last paragraph of the article suggests this was quite literally the artist's goal:

> “One of the reasons Joe is so insistent that every single building is here is because he would never want someone to come and see it and not be able to find where they live and see their story,” Sherman tells Artnet.

Its not like they broke into his shop and shared his model with the world before he could, it is currently an exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York.

As others said: practice. Practice outside pixel art too. Pixel art can be compared to haikus: a set of restrictions which makes every artistic decision more influential than an oil painting on canvas or a 200 page novel. Learning on hard mode is not always the right path.