320 karma · joined August 23, 2010
I mean, I get it, then sites can send to any number of indexers, but let's be honest, like you say, any new search engine has to get sites to push data out to them. That's just not. going. to. happen.
This quote is the most telling to me: “I want to work in the anime industry for the rest of my life,” Mr. Akutsu, 29, said during a telephone interview. But as he prepares to start a family, he feels intense financial pressure to leave. “I know it’s impossible to get married and to raise a child.”
He knows it's impossible to get what he wants in life, as an animator, but he still wants to do it for the rest of his life.
This isn't the case for most of the "jobs" that people are mentioning in the comments here, like people don't dream of being "cleaners" for the rest of their life, but there are other reasons why that might seem like their only reasonable choice. Lack of other marketable skills, probably being the most common. For cleaners, it doesn't even require that they can speak English, just that they can do the job they say the can.
My personal theory on anime, as that's the specific subject of the article, is that if there were a much lower supply of competent animators and the animations were more expensive to purchase, they wouldn't be so popular, people would find other things to do/watch, etc. Which really boils back down to supply and demand. It's not as simple as "people demand anime", but more something like "people are willing to pay $x for y hours of time watching anime", where services like Netflix (or more specific to the subject of anime, Crunchyroll) charge some small amount per month and give access to hundreds of seasons and full movies. If the masses had to purchase each season or episode individually, I'd suppose people would be watching a lot less or pirating a lot more.
Or another way to look at this is that lawyers get paid based on their reputation. Firms with a high reputation only have the ability to hire so many new lawyers. Those positions are indeed highly sought after, because that's how you get paid well, by getting in with a firm that already has a reputation. You're going to have a hard time starting out on your own, building up a reputation. Hell, sometimes you need to have built enough of a reputation just to get a position with a firm that has a high reputation.
While people/companies are looking for the best person/firm they can afford to represent them... cleaners are still just cleaners.
Your is probably an unpopular one, but I'd guess because of questions like "Who are these people that cared about privacy, were willing to switch and did actually switch, but don't realize that their phones might even be trying to upload their lives?" Unless you meant that the results of that survey showing 32% of people cared enough that they actually did something about it, in which case, that's not really an opinion. Just a fact that a very small survey (out of the people who use services/companies that can be switched from, if they cared enough to do so) includes a segment that seems to represent "people [that] care enough about privacy to switch to a service that preserves it."
What this survey does not try to establish is what percent of people "cared" and are "willing", but found it not worthwhile to switch, for reasons such as "this is how I communicate with my friends and I cannot convince them to switch" or decided it just wasn't worth it due to other costs.
For me, WhatsApp comes to mind, but I'm guessing it's a somewhat common problem. I personally do NOT want to use WhatsApp, but I have a group of friends that will not switch and especially with Covid, I do not want to lose those connections. Replace "group of friends" with <community> and WhatsApp with <whatever app>.
Not sure what you even meant by "This is not the source of mistrust". m463 pointed out a couple of things, neither of which was a _source_ of mistrust.
When you do consider the content/context, then we need to consider that this vendor/partner (IRI) was likely offended by the implications and the relationship between Google and the vendor/partner was likely damaged.
IRI did the right thing in not publicly commenting on the issue, though, so we'll never know for sure what actual affect this incident had on that relationship.
I'm just genuinely confused as to why people seem to think that [a] Apple is planning to switch to a locked down ecosystem on their notebooks and [b] Apple has been somehow limited in doing this until they had their own "silicon".
You're effectively criticizing people for not giving away their investment for free.
Also, you mention that money is unfair and is not a reflection of social value? What is the social value in being a lock smith? If you spend most of your day working as a lock smith for "social value", then you're expecting others to do the same. How does it work when you need something from someone else, but they "don't have the time" or just don't feel like doing it. "Social value" has less actual value than a social contract, but... getting back to money being unfair... Money is a way to pass value between entities, be they people or companies or other. I will pay money to a lock smith (again, just using a random previous example in this thread) and he will use that money for something he needs or finds value in.
Value is also highly subjective, hence the widely varying prices people are willing to pay for things or services. Though, as long as there are enough people willing to pay for a thing or service at the given price/rate, then it will be sold for that price/rate.
One last note, when it comes to information, which is not the actual work, I think you're underestimating the value gained by the person appearing to give the information away. On the internet, if you're writing articles for free, based on your experience, that you also sell to your employer as "work", you're probably getting something else out of it as well. Maybe recognition, hoping for a better job, or maybe just gaining experience in writing.
Fact check. You cannot make an X with anything less than 3 pixels. ;)
The difference between the food bank and this is that food cannot be consumed by everybody, all at once. It's near impossible to make "free" software that cannot be used by companies that are profitable. Who would police "profitability" when there's no money involved? The best you can hope for is to prevent a profitable company from using your code. Chances are, if the code is useful enough, someone else will write something similar without the same restriction.
My take: If you're writing FOSS, you know what you're getting into. If you need the money to do it, you should plan for that.
Take xbox live's original currency (still in use) where you pay $X for Y coin. They had your money in the bank, while you had some coins in your account, just sitting there, doing nothing for you. They had a bit more control and you could only buy amounts of coin that were not equal to the amount of coin you had to spend to buy anything, so you always had some left in your account.
In Facebook's case, just the time it takes to convert money to Libra and then back into actual money will net them some interest on it. On such a large scale, that's a constant income.
They're trying to be a non-profit because they don't actually charge for the service, but the investors still make money by way of holding on to your cash while it's in Libra form.
I've seen studies that show adding a monetary penalty, even per minute at pretty high rates, results in even later pickups because there's no guilt for being late, as long as their following the rules (pay money) vs just being late, where there's some amount of guilt for not honoring the agreed upon rules.
I'm guessing this has to be a similar situation. These companies can now comfortably play within the rules by just paying money. Until that amount of money is greater than any ongoing costs plus initial risks, I think we'll see companies just "paying the tax".
These things have nothing to do with my status as an employee or contractor as you'd never guess which one I was based on these facts.
Verizon is charging customers for access to internet content and they're bringing that content in over a peer balanced connection with agreements in place, intended for use in an actual peering environment, by business costumers of Verizon who are paying to provide content in the same way that Netflix pays Level3 to provide their content over their peer connections.
The conflict here is that Netflix is paying to provide the content, Verizon's consumers are paying to get access to the content. That creates a connection chain that is unbalanced in some way. Verizon just wants that imbalance to be double payment for them and nobody else.
When I sign up with an internet provider, I am agreeing to pay a fee for open access to the internet at large. I'm not signing up to pay for each piece of content I access or each site I connect to.
I've never agreed, to the best of my knowledge to pay for access only to content served at a rate limited by the reverse utilization of the peering connection that content provider's content can be accessed across.
They may have a peer balancing agreement, which is not being held up, but they're also still being payed by their customers to provide access to content outside of their own network and Verizon is enforcing a limitation from another agreement (the peering agreement) that is affecting their ability to provide the content their customers want to have access to.
You can't have it both ways. Or... I guess you can, as Verizon has shown.
They want the password on the server side purely for statistics or some other reason that has nothing to do with scoring how "secure" the password is.
Also, Apple's iRadio is probably not taking off as well as they'd like and Beats Music already has a better feature set.
In fact, it will make it easier to add similar regulations, as has been shown throughout the history of our country's particular style of governance.
Maybe you should look up the definition of "free market economy". If DRM is part of the price of viewing the content, that's part of the economy. Non-DRM protected content is still available, in the same market, but is generally less sought after in the same way that people are usually much less interested (if at all) in content that does not have a price or is completely free. If something has value, the creator usually wants to receive that value for their work.
TL;DR: This is exactly a free market economy. Anybody can provide content. There is no price fixing. Access to the content is not government controlled. Etc. Etc. The only thing standing between you and the content you want is what the creator/owner of that content wishes to receive from you in exchange for the content, be it money, DRM embedded in the delivery tools, etc.