That's hoarding. The content is downloaded and then used to train proprietary models at no benefit to greater humanity. Thus some few corporations are robbing the commons and trying to rent it back to us.
No. It's parasitic to horde human knowledge and seek rent for it.
If one is obsessed with the idea of maximizing profit above all other considerations including one's brotherhood to man, there's still other ways to do it that don't involve hoarding knowledge.
You are morally righteous to liberate human knowledge, it just annoys rent seekers. Honestly, annoying rent seekers should just be an immediate marker that whatever you're doing is probably ethical.
> Any display or system you end up using needs HDCP 2.2 compliance to play 4K or HDR content via a streaming service or any other DRM-protected 4K or HDR media, like a Blu-ray disc.
This plus all the notes below about how various apps won't stream 4k in various circumstances depending on platform or web browser just lend further credence to the idea that it's best to say fuck it and deploy a jellyfin instance and sail the high seas. Or at least rip blu rays.
I mean why would I pay all these streaming services for such subpar service?
I think that’s the same idea behind clicker training for dogs. There’s a delay in giving them the actual treat, but the instantaneous click sound lets them now they did the thing that results in a treat
not pavlov conditioning -- in Skinner's three term contingency, the stimulus context acquires meaning/significance related to the consequences of a response. a neutral or even negative stimulus (context) can become it's own reward through this process. this conditioned stimulus explains most animal and human experience. Humans are especially prone to constructing meaning based on the primal.
Think of the senses: sound becomes talking, music, etc. food become cuisine, obesity, and anorexia. eyes becomes art, movies, etc. desire becomes porn, s@m, etc.
meaning is constructed, socially constructed, or what skinner call "learning." His masterwork, long forgotten, is the "generic nature of stimulus and response." Generic as it open to near total manipulation
> The Instagram explore page that shapes her taste. The vocabulary borrowed from her favorite online therapist. Micro-influencers she follows without thinking. The TikTok algorithm that nudges her mood. The attachment style she diagnosed herself with.
> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.” A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.”
Forgetting to text becomes “avoidant attachment.” Opinions from friends, refreshed by the hour.
Smells like the angst of some recently dumped man. The girl is a slave to the whims of tik tok candy therapists but the boy is influenced by "ghosts." Please.
What this post is hitting upon correctly is that people are products of their environment, and trying to perfectly separate the two is impossible.
Reminds me of when 4chan banned Russia entirely to stop DDOSes. I can't find it but there was a funny post from Hiro saying something like "couldn't figure out how to stop the ddos. Banned Russia. Ddos ended. So Russia is banned. /Shrug"
Similarly, for my e-mail server, I manually add spammers into my exim local_sender_blacklist a single domain at a time. About a month into doing this, I just gave up and added * @* .ru and that instantly cut out around 80% of the spam e-mail.
It's funny observing their tactics though. On the whole, spammers have moved from bare domain to various prefixes like @outreach.domain, @msg.domain, @chat.domain, @mail.domain, @contact.domain and most recently @email.domain.
It's also interesting watching the common parts before the @. Most recently I've seen a lot of marketing@, before that chat@ and about a month after I blocked that chat1@. I mostly block *@domain though, so I'm less aware of these trends.
This drives me crazy because I use dmenu to launch things, and every time I want to launch a subsonic client I'm like "blueberry? Wayshin... Weish... Fei... FEISHIN!"
Just call it "subsonicfeishin" or something at least!
I thought the point of laws was not that enforcement is perfect but rather that the consequence of getting caught created a counter-incentive to doing the thing?
The point of laws is to document what everyone in a community has come to agree on, assuming a democracy. Or, in a dictatorship, what the dear leader has decided upon. Any punishments encoded into those laws may serve as a counter-incentive, I suppose.
But baked into that is the idea that enforcement isn't perfect so you can still disappear into the night when you have that urge to do whatever it is that is technically illegal. This allows acceptance of laws that might be considered too draconian if enforcement was perfect. However, it seems in the case of these digital-centric laws that enforcement will become too close to being perfect as, without the need to hire watchful people, there is strong incentive to make it ever-present.
Or maybe not, but that is why the question was asked.
reply