>Much of the streaming work is "security by obscurity" -- the systems only provide security because the end user either: 1) lacks the technical knowledge to save the data or 2) lacks the desire to do so (presuming they do possess the technical knowledge)
That's what I thought. I do think that a streaming video provider can provide added value, especially for live streams--e.g., by providing adaptive bit rates--but the terminology itself has a strong "wishful thinking from the business side" smell to it.
I only watch TV for sporting events. In my area, there’s currently a legal battle going on between the “regional sports network” that has negotiated broadcasting rights with certain major teams and Comcast, to whom the RSN sells the programming. Comcast declined to renew their contract, so games played by those teams are blacked out for Comcast customers. The RSN is arguing that Comcast has a monopsony on the purchase of programming from RSNs, and that their goal is to replace them with a subsidiary of their own. The original complaint and Comcast’s quick motion to dismiss show, if nothing else, that the RSN is legally out-gunned. It’s possible that 5G could provide an economically viable alternative distribution method—i.e., “over the top”—for the RSN.
It isn’t though. If you download someone’s work for your own enjoyment, you can plausibly argue that if you’d had to pay, you wouldn’t have been interested, so there’s no money that you’re taking from them. When you illegally sell someone’s work, there is necessarily money that should go to the artist but doesn’t.
Both the company that wrote the algorithm that submitted the request and the company that responded by creating a listing.
“What responsibility do print-on-demand providers have to prevent infringement on their platforms?”
All of it. The company that submitted the request also has all of the responsibility. It doesn’t have to be split between them. They are both 100% responsible.
Actually, most fortunes go to zero within a few generations. The “1% squared”—the top 0.01%—is not a monolithic group of people. I’d wager that 90% of the 0.01% had grandparents who were not even part of the 1%.
Real-estate speculation is basically rent-seeking, but inheritance is not. If someone amasses a fortune by creating wealth and leaves his assets to his offspring, they are not parasitic even if they never work. What matters is how the wealth was originally accumulated.
I used to have Georgist/geolibertarian sympathies, but my feelings now are pretty much the opposite (and no, I’m not a homeowner). In general, the rich do not create the poor. Moreover, communities have no obligation to make it easy for newcomers to overrun them.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote! Please remember to leave your shitty, entropic ideology when you flee the city you ruined.
Thanks for the great response. If I understand you, the problem is that this sort of state handling works at a low(ish?) level, and the frameworks that most people use nowadays didn’t prioritize it, so in order to do it properly you’d have to write custom code at a lower level of abstraction than most devs are comfortable with? Basically, it was handled poorly in libraries that are now universally used? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The lack of women in tech has never been caused by discrimination. Even if there’s been some discrimination, spending time and energy trying to increase the participation of demographic X in field Y is something I have a hard time understanding. It’s already been made abundantly clear in the West for at least a generation that if you want to pursue something constructive, you will receive welcome and support, regardless of your background. In my professional experience, I’ve never encountered even a whiff of anti-woman or anti-minority sentiment. I’ve worked at tech companies of various types and sizes occupying various niches, and the atmosphere has been unfailingly open and tolerant. I’ve spoken with colleagues who had no reason to hide their true feelings, and none of them has ever expressed a sexist or racist opinion.
I’ve read several ridiculous articles lamenting the obstacles that, supposedly, only women and minorities face when trying to get into computer programming. Sorry, but the only things stopping anyone who doesn’t live in abject poverty from becoming a coder are (a) lack of interest, (b) lack of persistence, and/or (c) lack of aptitude, in that order.
I didn’t say that I consider you part of the idiotic masses. I said that I hold that opinion if you’re part of the “woke” crowd. I don’t pretend that all idiocy comes from the left, but what does come predominantly from the left is the suggestion that anyone who doesn’t adhere to a rigid (yet tenuous!) ideology-be it feminism or Marxism or intersectionalism-is not only wrong, but hopelessly stupid or malicious or both.
I’m interested, but only if you don’t discriminate between the conservative idiotic masses (climate change denial, etc) and the liberal idiotic masses (agitating for a complete burn-down of western civilization).
Edit: which is to say, there are plenty of idiots on the right, but if you consider yourself “woke”, I’m not interested in an alliance with you because from my perspective you are part of the idiotic masses.
That's what I thought. I do think that a streaming video provider can provide added value, especially for live streams--e.g., by providing adaptive bit rates--but the terminology itself has a strong "wishful thinking from the business side" smell to it.