advisedwang

The original promise of streaming was simple. Everything would be available whenever you wanted it. You could sit down in the evening and binge an entire season without waiting a week for the next episode.

That's not how I remember it. Streaming services never had everything. The promise was: there would be something you would enjoy.

There are two reasons why this isn't working for us:

1. They've cut costs and over-optimized on engagement and now frequently a streaming service will literally not have anything you want to watch.

2. We've started expecting "must-see" shows and movies. You want to watch The Pitt, and then are mad that you need to get HBO or whatever and can't just watch it on Netflix. Perhaps you could browse Netflix and find something you'd like, but you have your heart set on a specific show.

Obviously (1) is a failing of the streaming providers, but I think (2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.

“code is data and data is code” is a fact of computing

The general purpose computers we have today all follow that principal, yes. However it's not a fundamental fact of computing. Turing machines, cellular automata provide other paradigms. And if those aren't practical enough for you, ASIC programming is Turing complete but cannot access its code as data.

They geoblock EU users so that the EU doesn't have jurisdiction over them.

Can you imagine how annoying it would be for checkout workers to have a giant barcode with a different product on the front of a book!

This website is a small, local company. They have a newsletter signup page so they do collect user info. Quite likely they are not GDPR compliant (e.g. take longer than 30d to delete records, don't have a process for answering data requests etc). It is reasonable for them not to want to invest in getting the legal advise to know whether they are compliant or process improvements to become compliant, as there is no ROI on that.

I love GDPR, but it's understandable for folks with no connection to the EU to just nope-out.

I like the kind of output artists make when they work on individual creative projects. I don't really like the kind of output artists make when they feel they need to crank out something every week that has to have roughly equal appeal to the exact same audience.

But the way the internet (and other mass media) scales means that only the latter can really have a business model and reliable income attached.

I believe there is a material difference between "content" and other modes of creative output: content is defined by a pipeline. It is desired for it's recurring revenue.

You could make the tackiest, most commercial and derivative musical, but it's still not content because it's just one.

You could make the most eloquent, poetic and inventive podcast in the world, but so long as you are still doing weekly releases (with ads, plus an ad free patreon, of course) it is content.

The tragedy is that we want artists to have reliable income, but the business models, incentives and consumption habits that come with the reliable output to provide that reliable income lead us to the ugliness that people blame on "content".

This story naturally ends after Claire's departure, but "that the era of sanctioned dissent was over" did not mean that dissent was over. The lesson for many was that "asking nicely" wasn't working. I believe that realization that real power was needed to in order to make change was a big part of why the Alphabet Workers Union was able to get off the ground. Of course it hasn't gotten the numbers to actually build much power, sadly.

To apply for a visa, even a B1 visa, you have to go to a consulate and show them proof of your bank account, property you own, family details, your job and such things (supposedly to show that you are tied to your home company and not secretly trying to immigrate to the US).

Governments don't even have all this information about their own citizens reliably even if they wanted to hand it over.

LLM generated code is not copyrightable

[citation needed]

I've seen cases where it was determined that the LLM itself doesn't hold copyright. But where are you getting the idea that nobody holds copyright?

The departures kind of subtract from the "flow state" feeling you get when lining things up. Sure, that's an additional challenge, but it's not that fun.

OK, but a heatwave isn't going to buy a derailer

I hope they are telling teens that their conversations are being surveilled.

That appears to be saying you cannot make a trademark of something that is well known to be used by someone else, which is very different from needing the new trademark you are trying to register to be well known.

Being well known is not part of determining if a trademark is valid

We've had speed cameras and red-light cameras for years. Flock cameras are not traffic enforcement cameras.

Jay walking is the big crime here?

Some reasons why a computer system is beneficial:

* Can send out updates quickly, e.g. changing rooms when you discover your secretary forgot to book the usual one that week 5 minutes before the club meeting.

* Folks can see/post updates without going in to the student center in person. This is particularly helpful if there's any club members who live further away and/or down come by the student center regularly and/or aren't highly engaged enough to go check a board.

* An archive of messages can be valuable. I have dug though club archives to find the name of a guest speaker from several years prior. Physical records make this difficult, especially in a college club where leadership changes frequently and papers get lost.

Of course... email can do all of that. The lesson is to be judicious with technology, not abandon it entirely.

The system seems to have no master or leader at all. Where in the article did you get that reads from a master have no consensus?

Of course, you could build database that uses meerkat to do leader election, and then neither reads nor writes need to go through the consensus algo. But then you've basically just reproduced conventional distributed db, and you're back to the timeout problems this was supposed to solve.

It doesn't mention CAP because it's obviously opting for consistency over availability, and is explicitly compared next to other systems that treat consistency as paramount. There's nothing interesting or new about it's approach to CAP.

This sounds like a very direct approach to linearizability - just put everything in a linear order.

But this includes READ operations too! You have to get global consensus for every read! Most distributed systems have additional complexity and latency on write paths so that reads can be completely local. If you can accept slow read operations this seems like a great trade off, but I think that is going to relegate this to niece usage.

Until legislators fear loosing their seats more than they desire a policy, they're not going listen to the people. That's why political manovering, lobbying, activism etc are part of the political process.

It's even worse for places like the EU that have a strong civil service or with a branch like the EC that isn't elected, because the processes above are very insulated from the general public

Which makes this effect even strong, because the civil service and it's internal priorities are long lasting and don't change with elections.

So many comments about the EU constantly re-trying the same law with minor tweaks, and about how legislatures do this in general. I wanted to provide an explanation for this behaviour.

The way legislation is expected to proceed in countries with parliamentary systems, especially with strong civil services, is that

1) a problem is identified. This can be the civil service detecting it on their own, petitioning from groups impacted by the problem (lobbying, the public etc).

2) The government prioritizes problems to solve according to political imperatives.

3) The civil service and/or parliamentary committees gather evidence on the problem and possible solutions.

4) the civil service and/or committee report on the issue. In practice this always finds the solution that the government wanted.

5) A bill is drafted based on the report.

6) The bill then proceeds through parliamentary committee, legislative votes, and whatever else is part of the lawmaking process.

When we see this issues fail, it's typically at step (6). But the problem still exists, and the issue is still on the agenda. It's still a priority to solve. So steps 4-6 are re-tried with different parameters that hopefully allow the bill to pass and the problem to be solved.

Just failing to pass parliament is not enough. You also need the political leadership to redirect their prioritization and implicit preferred solution.

I'm not saying this is good, just this is what happens.

OMG are people actually doing this for personal chats? That's psychotic.

This article and the one it is responding to are explicitly talking about non-business meeting contexts. They are talking about personal conversations, medical appointments and much more casual business contexts like informal interviews. Places where there would never have been a secretary present.

Did you look at the $3000 house? https://govauctions.app/auction/hud-home-420-e-dayton-st-fli...

It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It's not a large plot. It doesn't seem to be in an attractive location. For all we know the water is undrinkable. I suspect its true value is negative.

This says it's using AmazonBrandFilter's list of brands. Why would we use/support this chrome extension instead of the upstream one [1] which is actually doing the important maintanance task?

"Knockoff" seems to be literally describing itself.

[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/amazonbrandfilter/m...

Yes. When ZeniMax owns Id, and Microsoft owns ZeniMax.

I'm guessing the police simply reached out to all the analytics companies Ngrok ends up indirectly/directly sending data to, which ends up saving everything they get their hands on.

But those companies would have no way of knowing the GDID. It's not sent in a header, I assume.