IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

618

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nuh-uh! His hands are just naturally fire engine red!

I’m starting to think this jam session’s got too many licks and not enough comps.

Oh how awful. Did he at least die painlessly?

To shreds you say?

You should probably set your default routing to deny and only accept connections on well known ports that you know are safe.

The answer here is that a digital first sale doctrine and protection of personal digital copyright are things that need better dictation into the already stated legal protections. We literally have a Constitutional right to the things we create. Congress has created protections for our creations via copyright. If you take a picture, you have instant copyright to it. You have a legal protection that you can cite to bring civil litigation to bear onto those who violate it. If Amazon takes your photos and locks you out, they cannot remove that copyright protection that you're entitled to. EXCEPT, when their TOS indicates that you and Amazon enter into a quasi-joint ownership of everything that you upload.

And that is the thing. We already have laws that protect consumers on all of this shit. Congress just hasn't indicated how those protections translate to digital goods and for the most part, they've left it up to the courts to dictate it, which has gone incredibly bad for consumers. Congress has the power to bring over buyer protections on goods into digital goods, they just won't.

That's what is so frustrating. We have protections, but just because it doesn't explicitly say "applies to digital goods too" the corporate overlords get to royally fuck us over. That I think is the most infuriating thing. If this was an actual physical photo that was in a lock box or something that I was making regular payments for and the bank just decided to not let me get to my lockbox. I literally have the ability to drag their asses into court and have explicit protections to make that bank, at the very least, let me get my shit out of their box. But if it's a digital photo in a digital lockbox, that answer is that I get to fucking pound sand if Amazon says so.

It makes no fucking reasonable sense why it is like this. With the context of greed, yes, perfect sense. But no reasonable person looks at the vast number of consumer protections enshrined in our law and then looks at the vast void of protections in the digital world and go "Huh, that makes sense."

I think you are missing the point here. Yes, Amazon, blah blah blah. But technology and everyday life are increasing in their intersection. And things like the Equifax breach show, you don't have to participate to be involved.

In most of everyday activities you have some form of legal recourse, save for many of the technical activities. In many cases, this is largely left to companies to offer recourse and aside from arbitration, you have little other rights offered to you to bring about civil suit. Like the guy's photos, he took those photos. He has legal copyright over them, except when they're hosted in the cloud the TOS of many services makes your legal copyright suddenly a joint ownership. This reduces your ability to exercise your copyright to get your photos back and increases the bar of evidence to entry for civil litigation. For the most part, you are at the whims of corporations to exercise a right the Constitution grants you (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

That's the more general thing you should take away from this. You have rights granted to you, but because our legal system is largely silent on many digital aspects, you are barred in many cases to exercise your rights in the United States. For a lot of things, you lack legal recourse on something that everyday becomes more and more intertwined with your everyday life, whether you like it or not.

Yes, yes. It's easy to look at this particular episode and indicate "well you shouldn't use Amazon". And that's a fine take, but you're missing the point the article is attempting to make. In general, there are a lot of rights granted to you that you don't get to use because the law on how you use those rights in the court system is largely left up for companies to dictate. That is a really non-good position that lots of people have been yelling for our leaders in Government to address. When people yell, "we need to modernize our laws", this is what they are talking about.

Our predecessors created protections for us citizens. And because our current leadership won't translate those protections into the terms of modern society, companies are getting to dictate how, when, and where you get to exercise those protections our fore-bearers worked tirelessly for. You are having something stolen from you that it is easy to steal because so few actually need it, but those that need it are seeing the hard implications of that theft. And it will become more and more problematic as more and more things of our society require that technology. And some of it, you don't get to have a say on if you'll join in or not.

So it's really important that "IN GENERAL" you remember that this is really, really, really important to everyone. Yes, this specific instance, just don't use Amazon's cloud services until they have been resolution processes, that are more transparent. But please, don't loose sight of the bigger picture here that the article mentions.

Charlie Kirk

Oh. Well he’s a fucking idiot with the education of a third grader. Of course he’s going to say batshit crazy things. He can’t hold a real job so he’s got to entertain the other dumb as rocks idiots out there that love batshit crazy. That’s how dude makes his bread.

I mean it’s pretty easy to punch a semi truck hole in this dude’s logic. Not just only on how none of what he said made one lick of sense. But also on, dude has a financial incentive to stir pot and the crazier the better. It’s the Jerry Springer effect.

The folks who eat this shit aren’t going to be reasonable thinking folks, so there’s not a giving them logic to change their minds. They just love conspiracy and thinking that the world is against them. Because that’s easier than accepting their own failures in life. Kirk supports that internal logic and gives them comfort. That’s why they love his bullshit.

Just remember, the current CEO was too greedy even for EA

John Riccitiello is his name. Dude has the anti-Midas touch. Everything he has ever touched turned to shit. How people keep hiring him is beyond me.

That said, the board of directors is also part to blame for this. One name stands out, Roelof Botha. Same guy from Sequoia Capital that backed the whole Elon Musk taking a loan out for Twitter and old buddy of Musk's from PayPal days. He's also been known for some "choice" selections on where to put VC money.

And of course you have Barry Schuler of "I made AOL popular" fame. So… Yeah, he's a choice selection for the board as well.

But on the other side of it, you've got David Helgason one of the co-founders of Unity who has been pretty vocal about "We fucked up!". But to me that is a tell-tell that Riccitiello et al. sold the rest of the board on the change.

Point being, the board is made up of hard going MFers who fuck up along the way and folks who are easily rolled over by promises of $$$. So while the CEO is indeed "a work of something", the board is a perfect storm of "egos and pushovers".

Either way, yeah, I think that since literally no leadership change is coming from this "you put the same chemicals in, you're absolutely going to get the same reaction out." The only thing they have likely taken from this whole thing is that they cannot be as obvious about changes as they were.

You wouldn’t download a bridge would you?

Well now I shall drink my coffee knowing that I have angered some random person on the Internet. Not because that I have completed my task of finding someone randomly to anger, because I had no such task, but because my coffee is getting cold and it is solely what is keeping me alert enough to work and post things that anger people at the same time.

In seriousness, LOL. That does seem to be some people's reaction to people just interjecting randomness into conversations. I think those people just need a good cup of coffee.

In France it wasn't the wealthy who rioted over the gas tax. It was the average person

Oh absolutely. Changes in society are going to affect the marginal the most. No disagreement there.

but the guy who is just barely making it now with the supercharged fossil fuel economy?

But I would indicate that we must look at the core issue on why the guy who is just barely making it now is in such a position. The monetary resources of this planet are finite and there is a group who is holding onto the vast majority of it. If that bulk of wealth was better distributed the guy who is just barely making it would have more at their disposal to absorb the impact of the change. That isn't to say that the change would not still be felt, but they would be better to navigate such change.

but that's going to be a concern even with public companies with no "one percent" making the decisions.

I would say that this undervalues the amount of consolidation that has happened in most industries. Where many industries are reduced to say a few players who dictate the direction the industry goes into. We need to diversify the mixture of players in many core industries in order to find those who take risks that could benefit solutions to climate change. That or we mitigate the risks at a governmental level in order to foster those changes.

It's no one fix and done kind of issue for sure. But the rich do hold an outsize grasp on the levers of change in government policy and industry direction. But I think we cannot just simply dismiss that they have such a position that is adverse to risk that comes with new initiatives that seek to reduce climate changing emissions and that they have incentive to be adverse to those risks. Removing them completely would absolve governments from implementing policies that cost taxpayers to mitigate those risks and free up capital locked into the hands of a few who would be adverse to take those risks.

There's also ways we can do all of the above without removing any players from any given industry, but there (at least to me so do understand this is solely my take on the matter) seems to be too many bad faith actors within these various industries that would be so affable to such changes and would seek to shift the winds more in their favor.

The rich for the most part can afford and handle a transition

And that, I think, is the point I'm trying to make here. While they would absolutely be the ones better at handling the change, they are also the group that would seek to prevent the change in the first place. Because why have the change and potentially receive less when they can have no change and continue to receive their current amount? The road that they are on is proven to yield a known value and changing that brings about risks that can modify that yield in unknown ways. Why change to something unknown, when what is currently working has known values? It's a kind of profit inertia that grips a lot of industries.

The general public is just mostly struggling to get by, that profit inertia is less a factor in their day-to-day life. If there is a change, that via the liquidation of one who held large amounts of locked capital, we can mitigate the impact on those struggling; there is still an impact but by an avenue that does not require taxpayer dollars we can minimize it.

It's much like how in third world nations we were resource dumping onto these countries and preventing small players from gaining footholds. And by basically removing the ability for these rich companies to dump resources heavily subsidized onto the people of these nations we allowed smaller players to gain some traction. Yes, the cheap resources are gone and people are struggling, but allowing domestic production of these goods eventually allows for products that can be afforded by all, because the domestic production grants more liquidity to those who work the jobs, increases demand, and in turn requires expansion of those domestic industries to include even more workers. We, rich first world nations with industries that are outsized, just needed to stop dumping onto these countries to allow that to foster. A parallel of that to the rich, I believe can be made and is the point of my argument.

But that's not to detract from what you have here as well, in that the solution is much more complex than just a single issue. Eating the rich isn't the panacea folks believe it to be. Once those rich companies dumping on the poorer nations was gone, there still needed to be development of domestic production, that's a non-zero cost and risk.

way bigger than any stupid obvious fix

Yes, we have a societal shift that's required in order to address this issue. It's going to have to be as massive if not larger in scope than the entire industrial revolution and on a timescale more accelerated than the industrial revolution. I would posit, that the rich have the most incentive to maintain the current societal paradigm and have the most access to institute policy that maintains such. And thus, in general, in order to effect such a social shift that is required to address the issues, the rich must either begin supporting policies that put their vast wealth at risk or that the rich must be eliminated.

The latter of that I would draw a parallel to a blocked river to farm fields. Removing the blockage doesn't instantly irrigate the fields. There's still lots of work to be done once the flow of the river is restored. BUT digging all those irrigation ditches does nothing unless flow is returned to the river. In my parallel, the rich are our blockage to the river and removing them doesn't technically fix everything, but it's a step required in order to get flow back.

I am just randomly tossing this into y'all's conversation, use it as you wish. Aviation in general contributes 2.5% of the global emissions, (3.5% if you would like to read the fine print). That is ALL aviation, not just a selection of jets held by a few people. The 25% value is a real thing too but I think @VieuxQueb is misquoting it. A single private jet round trip from coast-to-coast of the United States with a party of four aboard (not counting pilots) is 25% the CO₂ value the average American will emit. There's actually a quora that talked about this when whatever news agency said this same thing.

I distinctly remember some news organization saying this, but it was worded so confusingly, I had a feeling someone would put it back together incorrectly. I cannot blame VieuxQueb, some of this stuff that's talked about is metrics that are hard to digest.

So. I just wanted to put that out there for you two. Thank you for your time. Hopefully that helps you all out.

FBI would be the chief investigative body that watches for assassination plots. One would think that would be slightly important to them.

If it's anything like the city of Introducing where I live, the next town over is Regretting.

Yeah, he's been recommended to have his board certification revoked because what he's been handing out recently is very wrong information. Bordering liability for any place that dares keep him resident. Considering the level of recommendation for revocation, he's not going to be a doctor much longer.

He better hope those book sales get him through retirement because he's about to become very unemployable soon enough.

Oh no. Drug companies do indeed do some massive research. Just via intermediaries that receive Federal tax dollars.

See, you pay out the ass first for the research. Then you pay out the ass to get the medication because "we have to recoup the cost of research" that you already paid for via tax dollars.

See, why rob the average American blind once when you can rob them blind twice?

Catholic priests: That's what I keep telling the alter boy!

I mean, it could be both.