tene80i

15 ms·

211.
by tene80i 2y ago
My point isn’t that Twitter is dead, remember. It’s that it is in decline. Bluesky isn’t a twitter replacement today, sure, but it’s a risk, even if the risk is only that the end result is fragmentation. I’m not sure why you say it’s imposs
212.
by tene80i 2y ago
I was actually referring to the financial institutions who backed the takeover writing off ~75% of the value of their investment in the platform during Musk’s leadership, which predates the recent Bluesky enthusiasm. But since you mention i
213.
by tene80i 2y ago
> supposedly Twitter would die in 3 days without their staff. It’s true that the smaller team has succeeded with uptime on the core service. It’s also true, however, that the platform is in serious decline, and that’s partly due to the p
214.
by tene80i 2y ago
Yes fair point, although as you say the existence of VPNs does explain how the advertising could be driving uptake of illegal behaviour, and therefore why it could be viewed as undesirable or improper.
215.
by tene80i 2y ago
The problem is advertising a service that’s illegal for large proportions of the audience being advertised at. That doesn’t seem particularly confusing. It’s illegal in country X, so don’t advertise it to people in country X.
216.
by tene80i 2y ago
I think Amazon would be fine because of the money it makes on other products, but I agree paying the author directly is a more principled approach than just paying nobody. Worth noting though that it’s not just Amazon and the author in the
217.
by tene80i 2y ago
The difference is that a reader isn’t in any way a victim. They’re choosing to read a book. And if they don’t pay, the writer will often simply be paid less, to the tune of the royalties on that one book. So, yes, that is stiffing someone.
218.
by tene80i 2y ago
The fact that the situation for authors is already poor hardly makes it better to opt not to compensate them. If you or the OP feel that you’re only playing a small part, that’s between you and your conscience. And sure, if you’re buying so
219.
by tene80i 2y ago
If they’re dead who cares? Often it’s in the public domain. Go nuts.
220.
by tene80i 2y ago
Shame you don’t see any need to compensate writers for your enjoyment of their work.
221.
by tene80i 2y ago
You want to make it illegal to give people money for good service? Or do you mean it shouldn’t be allowed to ask for it?
222.
by tene80i 2y ago
What was the demo? And what is the advantage of integrating local LLMs vs third party?
223.
by tene80i 2y ago
What kind of evidence do you want? I’m a car buyer and I’ve gone from seeing Tesla as a decent brand to one I will not consider at all, because I don’t want to associate myself with Musk’s behaviour. It’s not a conspiracy - some people just
224.
by tene80i 2y ago
Who says it’s blindly pursuing anything, or indeed a hole of any depth? It works because it increases the price, which reduces demand and leads suppliers to change recipes. What is your concern?
225.
by tene80i 2y ago
You could always pay for ad-free YouTube. Otherwise yes, not watching seems like the fair thing to do.
226.
by tene80i 2y ago
Your “perhaps unsurprisingly” itself seems to be an ad hominem fallacy, if you are keen for writing to avoid them.
227.
by tene80i 2y ago
Why should it? It’s clearly an article about doing neat things with CSS, not the technicalities of different degrees of randomness. Perhaps we should not be throwing around the word “should” so loosely…
228.
by tene80i 3y ago
When I see things like this I do wonder: what are the meetings that people are in that they wish they weren't? Are there many meetings you are in that you can provide no value to, and from which you gain no value? What are they, and do
229.
by tene80i 3y ago
This only follows if the only value/worth you consider is economic value, ie for trade. Which would exclude much of what people value: creativity, scientific knowledge, insights for living, personal growth etc. Obviously those have eco
230.
by tene80i 3y ago
Depends what kind of writing you want to be better at, but for fiction Stephen King’s ‘On Writing’ is both interesting and useful. As for ‘more’, what’s worked for me is to make a routine for it.
231.
by tene80i 3y ago
Most people? You mean most programmers, presumably?
232.
by tene80i 3y ago
The onus is on you to argue why, in the case of piracy, breaking the law is moral. With feeding the homeless etc the argument is clear.
233.
by tene80i 3y ago
Sure, because only the most trivial forms of utilitarian are act-by-act. A rule-utilitarianism could easily require us to pay one another for things, even things we could just take, to maximise overall utility. If you think it needs to be a
234.
by tene80i 3y ago
Yeah that’s an interesting angle. I don’t think buying secondhand books is cheap, because you are paying _someone_. Good question as to the morality of it re: author incomes. Paying no one and still getting whatever you want is what’s cheap
235.
by tene80i 3y ago
How so?
236.
by tene80i 3y ago
You think that because of your beliefs you should be able both to enjoy somebody’s work and not pay them? Boycott them if you want - that’s absolutely fair. But enjoying their work anyway, and just not paying, is unprincipled and cheap. And
237.
by tene80i 3y ago
The joke is of course also on the authors who will not be compensated by you for reading their work.
238.
by tene80i 3y ago
This is, respectfully, bullshit. Are you having an impact? Do you have publishers quaking in their boots? Do you even have a plan to extract your demands? Or are you just pirating shit you want to read and dressing it up as meaningful? Wh
239.
by tene80i 4y ago
That opinion is nothing to do with engineering. Contacting companies for comment is a routine part of journalism. And even if they don’t want to reply, this response is unprofessional and juvenile.
240.
by tene80i 4y ago
He gave them to a journalist who was writing his book. She later gave them to the press.

More ›