franga2000

Google: scans all books, people can search for them, find little snippets, see the title and author, buy the book to read it

AI: scans all art, people can ask it to produce art they're searching for, no reference to the original or its author, people no longer pay artists/designers/...

I think there's a very obvious distinction there. The whole purpose of copyright is ensuring the financial viability of creating works. AI slop is a direct market substitute for the originals it ate up for training, so it goes directly against that. Meanwhile, search actually improves the reach of works and, well, snippets and summaries are somewhere in between...

You'd be surprised. People regularly say that this is completely fair because the higher-paid people worked harder to get their education/skills/whatever, or that they literally just paid more for their education and that investment should be returned. I've head many other roundabout ways of basically saying "it's a fair system, people just need to work garder/smarter/whatever" and they actually believe it.

Makes it that much more absurd that tooling on modern platforms isn't anywhere near this level of discoverability and developer-friendliness.

I'm not sure if that's the right term, but by discoverability I basically mean having things like pallettes, property editors, visual builders, codegen... Basically that I can look at the pallete of widgets, drag a button onto the screen, click on it, see and rich-edit all the possible properties about the button, one-click codegen an event handler for any possible event of the button... No documentation, no guessing the names of properties of events, everything is just there right in front of me. I miss that from VB.

Do you really lack any imagination at all? Come on, at least scroll around the rest of this comment tree a bit...

This whole discussion is about the fact that it isn't paid well but it should be paid well.

But yeah, if "as far as you're concerned", what defines value is only the price under an unconstrained suppy-demand system, then this discussion won't go anywhere.

There are many inherent incentives that we correct for with laws. The incentive for people to shoplift is high, but we counter it with the threat of fines or jail. Similarly, the incentive is to raise prices / undercut wages / do arbitrage... and we can counter that with similar punishments.

I'm not saying I have the magic formula for how to codify such crimes and what punishment would be appropriate, but it took us hundreds of years to figure out how to effectively deal with even very basic crimes (and some countries still struggle with those).

Why does a kid in kindergarten that hoards all the crayons for himself get told off, but buying all the masks during a pandemic to sell at an insane profit was considered valid economic activity? We have arbitrarily decided that various tiers of "being an asshole" are somewhere between ssocially unacceptable and criminal, but if you're making money, being an asshole is fine. We can change that.

You're mixing up two parts of the discussion. This is unfair, THEREFORE we should ____. You need to agree on what the problem is, why it's a problem and what the outcome should be, then you can get to the methods.

And no, not that much. Automation is of course a factor, but it came at different times for different things and don't forget that it often made things worse for workers, at least where or when they didn't have institutional support.

Having institutional support for workers (unions and a pro-labour government) is what ultimately matters. Even if some prices go up and some jobs are lost, such institutions help smooth out the transition and put pressure on businesses which would otherwise jump at the opportunity to also increase their margins.

Less lumber gets produced, luber prices get higher or lumber productions profits get smaller, yes. Ideally it's a mix of the three.

But this isn't nearly as bad as you're making it sound. Lots of things used to be done by extremely low-wage workers or even slaves, and haven't gone away now that workers have to be paid better (or at all). Obviously many of those people are still paid very poorly and there's lots of work left to do there, but we improved things to a noticable extent and we didn't really suffer any bad effects. We can go further.

Well recognizing the problem is the first step, no? If you scroll up you'll see that this is what this was about. There are plenty of people who haven't even gotten that far and think supply and demand is the perfectly fine and the only option.

But sure, if you want, there are plenty of ways. Mandatory bonuses for higher-risk or generally physical labour would be one easy start, although it likely wouldn't be as effective in practice as one would like it to be. Restructuring the way people are paid as a whole is a more effective solution, which could cover other aspects too, although it would obviously be less popular with The Shareholders™ and therefore more difficult to pass. It's all a matter of legislation - every sane country has a law that says what the salary may or may not be based on, various limits (e.g. minimum wage), bonuses and modifiers... Maybe take inspiration from some countries' public sectors and make salaries fully standardized with a big lookup table and a bunch of modifiers based on objective or at least measurable parameters?

No?? I'm sorry but that's an insane comparison. We live in countries that have laws. Those laws are what applies the "law" of supply and demand to wages. We could alternatively have laws that say all human labor is paid equally per hour worked, or have a master table of types of work to monetary amounts, or some complex formula that takes various measurable factors into account.

I'm not saying any of those specific examples would be better than the current, but they're definitely options that exist and they're just words on a page passed by parliament, just like the current system is.

Hell, some of those things already exist in the public sector [0]. My base salary is calculated based on my job title and level of education, automatically adjusted with cost-of-living inflation, with modifiers for years of experience, job performance, being on-call, mentoring, working non-standard hours or weekends, dangerous conditions...

[0] I'm only familiar with some EU countries, not sure how this is done in the US or wherever else

This is not about abilities at all though, compensation shouldn't be tied to just "ability" either. My point is that it should to some extent depend on the risk a person takes on as well.

No matter how many people are are able and willing to do some "low-skill high-risk" work, their salary should reflect the fact they are taking on a risk. Taking that risk should be valued and rewarded by society.

This is not about equal outcomes, it's about fair compensation. If someone risks their life and damages their body in a mine every day, it's absurd and insulting that I make more than them sitting in an air-conditioned desk typing on a keyboard.

> when your primary value is that you're willing to put yourself in physical harm, the market for your offering has a lot more supply than demand

I don't think anyone here is unaware of this, it's more that maybe, purely relying on supply and demand leads to unfair outcomes...

Your logic is that cops do good things (put bad criminals in prison) therefore we should let them do whatever they want. Talk to anyone who's been the victim of police brutality, falsely accused, falsely imprisoned... and you'll see why this doesn't work.

Yes, I have. They hate all this red tape (warrants), they hate that everything is encrypted, they're annoyed they don't have the budget for more seat licenses of the latest version of Cellebrite so they could crack more phones and faster. For most cops, wanting to cut red tape and "just do whatever it takes" is in their blood.

I don't know what you're not seeing here. Even the most honest and fair cop would love to "preserve evidence" while they wait for a warrant - they already turn on airplane mode and put devices in a Faraday cage, sometimes they even put them to charge so they stay AFU until they get a warrant. To them, such software is just a natural extension of that, after some manufacturers added auto reboots.

And from the software vendor's perspectice, it nakes perfect sense to take advantage of AFU, hack the phone, dump it or install a backdoor to "preserve AFU" and then pretend to hack it once the cops click "I have a warrant now". It's a great business model - it solves a real problem, it gives you a competitive advantage, you aren't even technically lying, just not telling the whole truth.

The fact that this article even exists supports the fact that they have to look like they're waiting for a warrant in order for the evidence to be admissible, so they've found a clever trick.

If the software hacks the phone first, but only releases the information later, while marketing itself as simply "preserving the device state", they can point at that marketing and say "we're just preserving evidence while waiting for a warrant", despite the fact they've actually already broken into your phone.

I've been hearing about the US searching phones for many years, but not a single time for any other (non-dictatorship) country. The advice for travelling to the US in my circles is "wipe your device, install some believable bullshit, restore from backup when you're through". Not for any other "normal" country.

So you don't miss ads, you miss a scheduled break. You literally said you walk away when they happened, so you didn't even see them.

That's fine and there are tools to get that scheduled break back - even the official YouTube app has options to remind you to take a break every X min of watchtime and there are some very advanced general screentime limiting apps out there.

As you say YouTube ads aren't scheduled well and they're too short and unpredictable to even go to the bathroom during. Integrated ad reads are even worse in that regard.

I love sponsorblock, it feels like adblock felt the first time I installed it.

Every time I see a creator I like do a "smooth transition" from content to ad, it makes me feel betrayed. Not only are they about to read words someone else wrote for them and which they don't really believe, they spent an extra 15 seconds pretending it was part of the video in order to keep my full attention when they throw the sponsor name in my face. It's scummy behaviour.

Creators need sponsors to pay the bills, just as they do ads, I get it. I don't fault them for the industry basically forcing them into these kinds of "integrated ad reads", as well as the fact basically all the sponsors have huge ethical problems. But I will not subject myself or the people who watch videos with me or on my devices to this brain rot.

That's why I try to support them in other ways (YouTube Premium, Patreon, etc.) and run adblock and sponsorblock on everything. By my napkin math, they make more this way anyways.

Sure it shouldn't have been approved, but it was approvied through misleading marketing and a huge and expensive lobbying effort. Flock spends a ton of money convincing cops and legislators that their product works well, is useful and safe. That was always a lie and they have to be held responsible for it.

What point are you making by saying "they're just like the average Joe" followed immediately by saying they have so much more money that they can outbid the average Joe at any price point.

If someone can dump 100x the money to get something I want, they're not "just like me".

I find it incredibly funny that the comment shown (to me) right above this one is:

> This is one of the most lucid pieces of writing capturing the current state of play I’ve read. Who is the author?

The web client definitely lacks features, but I fail to see how this is a client feature? You can share your screen and have your camera on at the same time. It's the recording server that decides how to composite those together.

> Rune is a native graphical application built around a character grid, not an application running inside your terminal.

So it has the visual limitations of a TUI without the portability benefits? Why??

I really don't get why redhat decided to kill SPICE. It was the only thing that got using a VM on open source virtualization (e.g. proxmox) close to the experience of using one on vmware.

VNC is truly the worst remote desktop protocol you can have. Bad latency, bad quality, bad integration.

I'm not sure what you mean...

In OrganicMaps/CoMaps I click "edit place" > "Business hours" and get a nice vidual editor with checkboxes for each day it's open and boxes to put in times.

Same in OsmAnd, but editor looks a bit different.

Cartes.app has the "imrpove this place" screen where opening hours is one of the options, but it takes a few more clicks.

Openstreemap.org's web editor also does open hours quite well, but it does have a much complex submission process (it also asks for an edit message and edit tags).

Cartes.app has sattelite imagery as a "premium" option if you donate because they probably have to pay for it. OsmAnd also does, but I don't know if it's free because I paid for it years ago.

The only time I "needed" a credit card is when I tried to sign up for some US company's service. It rejected my debit card because it wanted credit, so I just took my business elsewhere.

Other than that, I've rented cars, rented other things with a "X will be charged to your card if you return it late", unattended gas stations... all the usual places you'd think need a credit card. It's fine.

We do have a "negative limit" that banks often give you, which means you can go into the red and pay it back later, but that has nothing to do with the card, it works even for normal bank transactions.

These vulnerabilities only get fixed because they're used by public rooting tools. If blackhat hackers found them instead, kept quiet about them and used them carefully, they'd never be fixed.

Compared to every person owning their own car, but now it has a bunch of extra sensors and a cloud subscription? And the city still needs to build and maintain the roads.

Or a bunch of robotaxis, which reduce the up-front cost and amount of parking needed, but the operational and infrastructure costs remain.

Self-driving cars are an absurdly inefficient way to reduce traffic deaths that exists only because it makes substantially more money for shareholders than the alternatives. You are being witheld a good and cheap solution now for the promise of a worse and expensive solution some time in the future. All the while people keep dying.

Oh, and what's this "those who don't have it" bullshit? If anything, turning driving into a subscription service will mean mobility becomes harder for many people, as dirt-cheap used cars slowly stop being available. As for people who can't drive for whatever reason, they already have taxi apps. And don't think for a second that self-driving taxis will be cheaper in the long term than regular ones, only the margins will go up.

Well yes, SNI will be removed, when ESNI reaches far enough adoption. That's my point! ESNI does what SNI does, but securely.

You fix an insecure implementation by replacing it with a secure implementation, not removing the feature completely.