wilg

It might be a good regulation but it is definitely not essential!

All of those things can be recycled and almost all of them can be replaced whether or not its end-user-servicable.

All but Tesla and Rivian I think.

It's also possible its not a conspiracy and you and the other poster just have different opinions.

You don't get to choose how a particular movie was funded and who agreed to pay who in exchange for what.

That's false. You actually do pay the creators by buying their work like 99% of the time. Pretending you're fighting business structure around art financing is pure cope.

You do if you want to be seen as a good person. You can be a bad person if you want to be.

Doesn't change my point, you're generalizing from a tiny number of people to justify not paying everyone.

CarPlay is for cars with shitty software

That's what I said, but $35 USD or $50 AUD is inexpensive for a game, especially a high quality one like this.

Is it true? I looked into your claim here and it doesn't seem substantiated at all.

This is a $35 USD game.

My issue is not understanding "why people are frustrated", it's that people think that frustration entitles them to take things they do not need from artists and creators who are trying to make a living.

Most copyright holders prefer you sending money for them in the way they ask you to, which is by purchasing it in the way they are offering it. And it's completely hilarious to suggest that most pirates are somehow Venmoing the artists directly. 99% of content has no way to actually do that.

This is word salad. People are making things that you want so they can make a living and you can have something you want. This is a win-win. The only problem is you have to pay for things which people only offer in exchange for money. You can cheat them, but it's not cool to pretend you're doing it for some big amorphous moral fight.

If the best you got is "you can't stop me", that's true, but not really very relevant to what is good and right.

I don't think the idea of "paying creators for things I want" is outdated or impractical. Law and order is the foundation of civilization, and just because some dumb companies charge more than you want does not mean you are righteous for breaking the social contract.

That’s an excuse, not universally applicable, and not even well supported by your own link.

> Herzog continued. “I don’t like it because I would like to earn some money with my films. But if someone like you steals my films through the internet or whatever, fine, you have my blessing.

He’d rather you didn’t. And I bet you’re not checking every artist. Just be honest and say you don’t want to pay, don’t act like you’re Robin Hood.

No, those aren't the restrictions. But there are restrictions. First-sale doctrine allows lending. But you are not allowed to play the movie in, say, a restaurant, theater, or other public place.

The point OP is making is that it's not the concept of ownership that has been twisted, there just never was ownership of media beyond owning the actual copyright. Everything else is licensing.

You actually have to support the creators however THEY want if you want access, not however YOU want. I suspect you're not actually supporting all the creators of the things you watch via piracy!

Yes, of course it's easier to pirate it. The problem is that its unethical (and illegal). That you find it inconvenient to pay for things you want is not a valid justification.

Yes, this joke/point has been made 10,000 times in this thread in almost every comment, and on every other previous thread. Thank you!

Because Anthropic has terms of service with more stipulations than just "you must pay and can use the service for any purpose"?

> significantly better performance-per-watt than current state-of-the-art alternatives

An interesting example of how the current market dynamics incentivize low cost and therefore power efficiency and therefore lowering resource use.

This is more of a question of the definition of "drive a car" than any specific issue about intelligence. Drive a car without errors? Impossible, and now we're into a subjective discussion about what feels intelligent. Pass the DMV test? Probably. How complicated are the conditions? There are plenty of drivers with bad judgement. It's a quicksand sort of discussion.

None of that changes whether it's a UI toolkit, which it surely is.

They don't have to sell?