2,967 karma · joined July 27, 2011
And then put the rest into Apple stock. I told him he was absolutely insane.
He sold about a quarter of it at some point in 2018, but is currently sitting on several million dollars of gain.
Siri is still pretty awful and useless though.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose and so on.
I don’t even know what this means. I don’t want you poking through confidential client files. And this smells so vibe coded how am I meant to trust the security of the files?
Edit:
Oh my god. I just saw this. “ Files that arrive as an experience, using our living templates: a wax-sealed letter, a parcel to unbox, a mixtape that plays, a blueprint that unrolls, a runway collection to unzip. Your logo, colours and type on every one — recipients don’t click a link, they open a delivery.”
Is this a joke?! No one wants to have to sit through so performative AI animation to get a file. This is horrendously tacky sounding. And potentially really painful for someone who just wants to download a file.
https://www.404media.co/elias-thorne-chatbots-llms-chatgpt-l...
The author can’t even get basic facts right.
“When Daft Punk became robots around the turn of the millennium”
Is 1993 really “around the turn of the millennium?
It’s also worth recognising that this is written from an ultra-orthodox, uktra-Conservative Catholic stance, by a Jesuit in the “Jesuit review”.
But I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking.
YouTube is a directly negotiated licence - ie it doesn’t fall under any of the statutory blankets, and is licensed territory by territory. Most rights holders are able to license for multiplied territories and often globally. But if soemthing was not licensed for a particular territory in which you were based you would not be able to watch the music video.
The recording and publishing need to be separately licensed by the record label and publisher(s), with the performance and mechanicals handled differently, and potentially flowing via a CMO or mechanical licensing society. The video will be provided by the record label - and they generally own the copyright in the video as a work for hire. If there are sample in the recording they will have been cleared by the label for both the recording and publishing. If there’s an interpolation of a song that will be negotiated and licensed with the publisher(s) or writers as a derivative work.
YouTube uses Content ID to identify the works being exploited, and uses that to account to rights holders.
Is that what you were asking?
Most people I see out and about are either using face time, or inexplicably speaking in speakerphone and holding the flat, face up, with the bottom of the phone towards to their mouth in a weird awkward way, or they are using headphones, wired or wireless.
Most of the things that were invented after 1710 were pretty trivial. Things like the spinning jenny, the steam engine, water powered weaving, wrought iron, steam locomotion, the electric telegraph, the lightbulb, waterproof fabric, the hydraulic press, the telephone. Imagine what else could have been achieved if copyright didn't incentivise authors and publishers to disseminate knowledge by allowing them to sell books, magazines and news sheets.
One additional point, in response to your comment: public performance licences are for events or venues, not DJs.
So if you are DJing in club, you are covered. Indeed, there are even specific technologies that log what DJs are playing, built into DJ hardware, and report back to collective licensing bodies so that the rights holders in the tracks played and mixed are properly compensated.
However, my point was less about the intricacies of licensing, and more about the ability to play the music to people under a "blanket" licence. There is no equivalent licensing framework for releasing remixes as recordings.
But to SELL it you’d need the permission of the songwriters and record labels, and probably agree some sort of split on the royalties. But is that actually so unreasonable, given it is their work you’re using? Have you sent them your remixes and asked if you can release them?
2. “Work during internet blackout” implies “can communicate with others if the internet is blacked out” and yet your AI has a whole section about tools which “evade filtering on a functioning internet connection — none of them work during a full shutdown”.
Worst sort of slop.
Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. Dilbert made real.
And then, presumably, their downstream supply chains and integration tooling and yadda yadda.
Every time I am in a railway station it seems that digital signage runs on Windows, because the digital signs are always throwing errors.
None of this stuff needs windows but most of the time I guess no one is going to switch away because they are all so embedded, and it requires work and a bunch of people to make a decision.
Maybe the Windows execs were just modelling how they hoped corporate culture would look in their perfect customer.
Which is why it’s nice when the Swiss and French and so on ditch Windows for more open alternatives.
Or are there still groups of Microsoft employees saying “I saw a fire extinguisher in Bob’s office the other day. He was using it as footrest. I told Magda to warn him about the health and safety but she said it was Julian’s job… and the guy who pays for them to be filled and tested left three years ago and no one replaced him, so it probably doesn’t work anyway.”
When something is on fire, pass the buck to other people and stand around saying “that thing is on fire… wouldn’t it be great if someone called the fire brigade? I have the number here. One of you guys, give them a call.”
Oh, wait.