ramjambamalam @ ramjambamalam @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

316

Joined

2 yr. ago

This seems most plausible. OP, if you have a multimeter you could try to trace which TRS terminal has continuity with the damaged wire (if it's exposed) and see which signal it's supposed to carry.

Ever heard of anti-trust?

Sincere question: do you use a unique, secure password on your Spotify account, and are you sure that it's never been compromised? Your story sounds very similar to a case where a Spotify account was being used by someone else.

Reply All episode about it: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/j4he7lv

I think I understand how I ended up believing you were pirating even though you weren't: @zaphod makes it seem like you're doing something remotely unethical when you not only use a legitimate subscription service but also support the artists through other ways! I'm not sure what more an artist could ask from a patron such as yourself.

By your definition of harm, no artist creating non-material goods (books, movies, music, etc) could ever experience harm due to any one individual’s actions. “I was never going to pay, so taking it without paying is a victim less crime,” etc, etc.

False. I acknowledge that there could be harm if a consumer would otherwise be able to afford to pay for all of the music they listen to. The distinction here is that if a consumer is already spending as much as they can truly afford then artists aren't going to get any more money out of this consumer, regardless of whether or not they pay for it.

In other words: if you pirate because you must = no harm; if you pirate because you can = some harm.

That's an interesting thought experiment about the cheating spouse, though. Thank you for the interesting perspective! This makes me want to re-visit my philosophy notes.

For the record, I pay for Spotify and also support artists through Bandcamp, merch, vinyl, and live concerts. I also pirate music which isn't otherwise available through Spotify and/or Bandcamp (e.g. The Grey Album by Danger Mouse, and up until recently The Flamingo Trigger by Foxy Shazam) and don't feel guilty about those instances.

My mistake! I lost the thread when typing my response. Don't worry, I'll call the RIAA today and cancel the snitch report I made ;)

My argument isn't simply utilitarian either. It would be utilitarian to say, "It's moral to pirate music as long as your enjoyment exceeds the harm caused to the artist." But I'm saying that there is no harm caused by OP pirating in this situation. Don't most moral arguments involve some kind of measure of harm? (Honest and sincere question)

It's been a while since I studied philosophy, but for my own knowledge, do you know if there is some distinction between this sort of argument (e.g. "no victim = no crime") and plain old utilitarianism?

In other words, what ethical theory is your moral argument based on?

But maybe the answer is to value the effort of musicians and either pay them for their work or consume less?

What benefit would that decision have? Artists would still receive the same amount of royalties. @Plume would still spend the same amount of money. What benefit is there to artificially limit his music listening hobby because of copyright law?

Lots if employees have stock based compensation and therefore do own part of the company. A tiny fraction of a company's market cap can still be a huge component (over 50% is not uncommon in tech) of an employee's compensation.

I mean this kindly: have you had a sleep study recently? That doesn't sound typical and you may have a sleep disorder like sleep apnea. Diagnosis and treatment could give you more energy during the day. Take care!

That's not a decent setup; that's an awesome setup! Just not as beginner-friendly IMO.

If you want a decent setup, I'd suggest Radarr (movies) and Sonarr (TV) and a torrent client to get started. Three packages, and they can all run in Docker containers.

Point out where a driver is saying they shouldn’t have to stop for those things?

I'm referring to this specific multi-use trail crossing. I'm sorry for not making that clear enough for you to understand at first glance.

I'm suggesting that drivers should slow or stop each time they pass this crossing, and you're suggesting that cyclists should atop each time they pass this crossing.

If cyclists are entitled twats for not wanting to stop to push a beg button at every crossing, would drivers be entitled twats for expecting the same thing? Or do drivers deserve better? How much whining would there be if roles were reversed?

I'm sorry, I thought we agreed that better cycling infrastructure is better for all road users, including drivers. If we don't agree on that, then I understand that you won't agree with my subsequent points.

I also don't see how an overpass or an underpass would negatively impact drivers at all...

Why do you present a false dichotomy again, this time between cyclists crossing a dangerous road without stopping, or coming to a complete stop? I can think of at least two or three other solutions off the top of my head:

1. Lower the speed limit of the road and improve visibility so that commuters can see one another.
2. Place a yield sign so that drivers are legally required to slow to a speed at which they could safely stop if necessary.
3. Build an overpass or an underpass so that the lanes don't cross on the same plane.

If we can agree that the current infrastructure is suboptimal, let's focus on improving the infrastructure rather than assigning blame. Improving the infrastructure helps all road users.

And there is, except in cases where it isn’t.

In my experience as a driver, pedestrian, and cyclist, is that good cycling infrastructure is the exception, not the rule. Do you really think we generally have good cycling infrastructure in Canada?

The alternative is expecting a vehicle doing 60km/s to stop on a dime.

That's a false dichotomy. What if drivers were simply required to slow to a crawl (yield) at certain intersections, rather than cyclists having to completely stop to press a button, and then wait for the light to change?

Can you imagine if cars treated every red light like it was a yield?

Yes, I can, because that's how most drivers treat stop signs. I don't like generalizing drivers or cyclists, but "jesus it's like some of them go out of their way to avoid safety measures" could apply to all types of road users. Heck, just ten minutes ago on the drive home from the gym, some idiot in a car pulled out in front of me from a drive, into a busy, snow-covered street at the bottom of an overpass and I had to brake heavily to avoid turning his passenger side door into a modern art sculpture.

I feel like the safest driver on the road in my '69 Boson GT.

I'll take a shot at de-escalating this thread...

What you're remembering is reasonable because you were a kid and probably biking on a sidewalk, which is generally not what commuting cyclists use. I (and perhaps @frostbiker) are thinking of a crossover at a multi-use trail which are designed for cyclists to commute along.

Surely if you want people to drive less (which is a good thing for all commuters, especially those who drive!) then wouldn't it behoove municipalities to design infrastructure that's conducive to efficiently cycling, right? To me, having to stop at every single road crossing is incredibly discouraging. Can you imagine if every light on your commute was red?

They do the same shit for Google search results. Search weather or stock tickers with a Chrome user agent* and you get a rich, interactive chart of the weather forecast or stock history. Search with another mobile user agent and you get a static snapshot of the weather or stock price at an instant in time.

There's even an extension for Firefox for Android which changes the user agent for Google searches to Chrome, to get the rich content.

just a user agent, not an actual browser, which proves that it isn't about browser capability, but rather abusing their monopolistic market position in search to further their web browser's market share. Sound familiar, Microsoft from the 90's?