Not necessarily true, as the success of streaming shows. The problem comes when the unbounded greed of the billionaires in charge leads them to inflate prices beyond their customers' ability and willingness to pay.
Streaming was cheaper than what existed before, and still is. Inflation-adjusted, movies and TV were insanely expensive back then, yet people willingly paid. And the movies were better. Who's greedy, companies wanting to offer nonessential entertainment for a price, or people who want it for free?
Nobody I ever talk to cancel Netflix because it’s too expensive. They cancel it because it runs out of content they care about. Including me. I’m not keeping a sub for that one week a year I find something I enjoy.
No? I would be willing to pay more if it actually had things I wanted to watch. Right now it's technically cheap enough where it's not painful when it lapses for months where I don't use it, but it's still a waste of money so I finally cancelled it about half a year ago. I'd be willing to pay a lot more if it had and retained a sizeable library. But it keeps rotating in nuggets of gold with a deluge of cheap trash. At least in Norway, I am aware it varies wildly by region. Not my problem as the customer, that's theirs to solve.
Sadly, you're right. But it's a Catch-22 here, if I pirated everything people would accuse me of being part of the problem, etc.
I enjoy the moral high ground of paying for everything yet still supporting piracy (with caveats, and not for everything): it makes my position unassailable.
And I disagree with your last statement, as I said it's a framing issue and framing matters. I'm pro consumer, and therefore, it's not the same thing .
It's both. I canceled when they increased their pricing again (a few months ago), because there's no way I'll pay more when neither the service nor the catalog gets better. I would have kept my subscription if they hadn't increased the price, regardless of any changes to the catalog.
The aggravating part about this: that was not the intention of the copyright clause. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Authors and inventors. Authors and inventors.
Not companies. Not entities, or even individuals, who purchased the "rights" and now "own" works. That has nothing to do with the intent here, which was to encourage actual authors and inventors to make more stuff. Walt Disney has been gone for more than half a century; he's not going to be able to come up with another Mickey Mouse.
"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. Pray, tell me, which part of my brain does Disney own? Do they own the part that knows what Mickey Mouse looks like?
And it has only gotten worse since then. A copyright for a decade or two is completely reasonable, but "life of author, plus 70 years" benefits only large companies. Someone is violating your rights? Good luck suing them if you are an indie creator! Want to create a parody, which is totally legal? Sorry, you can't upload it anywhere - all the hosting companies decided to apply Copyright 2.0 instead!
Having lived in that era: no one "complained endlessly", or even at all, about the internet. It was seen as magical. When compared to not existing at all, being slow wasn't all that awful.
I remember using the internet around 2005 and you could hold a conversation while waiting for the page to load. No one complains, because you have a wealth of information at your fingertips. It was actually amazing to chat with someone anywhere in the world or to be able to browse some forums.
>When compared to not existing at all, being slow wasn't all that awful.
slow is relative to the use, anyway
I remember the first time I saw the real time chat function of ICQ, where people could see you typing with not that much delay, I was utterly fascinated that such a thing was even happening
normal web pages not filled with animated gifs were not unbearably slow either
"slow" is what happened if you tried to use Real Player and saw that dreaded "buffering" every 5 seconds of video
At their peril, because any set of rules, no matter how seemingly simple, has edge cases that only become apparent once we take on the task of implementing them at the code level into a functioning app. And that's assuming specs have been written up by someone who has made every effort to consider every relevant condition, which is never the case.
And in the example of "why" this 401 is happening that's another one of those. The spec might have said to return a 401 for both not being authenticated and for not having enough privileges.
But that's just plain wrong and a proper developer would be allowed to change that. If you're not authenticating properly, you get a 401. That means you can't prove you're who you say you are.
If you are past that, i.e. we know that you are who you say you are, then the proper return code is 403 for saying "You are not allowed to access what you're trying to access, given who you are".
Which funnily enough seems to be a very elusive concept to many humans as well, never mind an LLM.
...then there are the other fun ones, like not wanting to tell people things exist that they don't have access to, like Github returning 404 errors for private repositories you know exist when you aren't logged into an account that has access to them.
That one at least makes sense if you ask me. It's not just Github doing it. On the web side of things you'd return the same "no such thing here" page whether you don't have access or it really doesn't exist as well. So leaking more info than the page you return to users in the browser would show via the status code would not be good.
I.e. that would be the appropriate thing to do if you're trying to prevent leakage of information i.e. enumeration of resources. But you should not return 401 for this still. A 404 is the appropriate response for pretending that "it's just not there" if you ask me. You can't return 404 when it's not there and a 403 when you have no access if enumeration is bad.
So for example, if you don't have access to say the settings of a repo you have access to, a 403 is OK. No use pretending with a 404, because we all know the settings are just a feature of Github.
However, pretending that a repo you don't have access to but exists isn't there with a 404 is appropriate because otherwise you could prove the existence of "superSecretRepo123" simply by guessing and getting a 403 instead of a 404.
> That seems very dependent on which company you work for. Many would not grant you that kind of flexibility.
It really boils down to what scenario you have in mind. Developers do interact with product managers and discussions do involve information flowing both ways. Even if a PM ultimately decides what the product should do, you as a developer have a say in the process and outcome.
Also, there are always technological constraints, and some times even practical constraints are critical. A PM might want to push this or that feature but if it's impossible to deliver on a specific deadline they have no alternative to compromise, and the compromise is determined by what developers call out.
The majority of places I've worked don't adjust business rules on the fly because of flexibility. They do it because "we need this out the door next month". They need to ship and ship now. Asking clarifying questions at some of these dumpster fires is actually looked down upon, much less taking the time to write or even informally have a spec.
> Why code when you can just ask the computer to do what you want and get the results.
Because then you won't know the design of the code or how it even works.
The hard part of coding isn't writing the code itself. It's the design of the code that takes skill, and if you leave that part completely up to AI, you are taking your life in your hands. Bad idea.
Not saying it's a good idea. In fact, I watched someone on twitter debugging code. When the application errored out, he regenerated the code, including the issue in the prompt. Something else failed, the prompt was updated, and code regenerated. Now that of course was for visible errors.
When the person building the application doesn't know or care, the application will still be deployed.
I recently had the pleasure of reviewing AI-generated Ruby code at work. It was so nonsensical and couldn't manage to get basic map and reduce right. I didn't initially know it was AI generated, and I was at a loss of words regarding what I should write as feedback.
Something needs to be done. It should be uncontroversial to require solid understanding of fundamentals from software professionals, yet here we are discrediting knowledge by calling such things "gatekeeping." It's reckless behavior as the industry is hellbent on hoarding as much personal information as it possibly can. Information that any responsible professional should be working to keep secure at the very least.
This is especially true when you start vibe coding critical systems that human life depends on.
Emergency services, hospital infrastructure, financial systems (like Social Security, where a missed check may actually mean people starve) are all places where you don't want to fail because of a weird edge case. It also feeds into fixing those edge cases requiring some understanding of design in general and also the design implemented.
Then there's the question of liability when something goes wrong. LLMs are still computers right now: they do exactly, and only what you tell them to do.
> Because then you won't know the design of the code or how it even works.
I would argue that this is already true for people who practice vibe coding, because otherwise they'd spend less time just banging it out themselves instead of twisting prompts to get something that mostly works and needs hours of debugging.
"Journalism" is now often just a euphemism for shock porn and clickbait.
At the end of this Atlantic article, the author admits:
> Luckily for humans, though, skepticism of the strong interpretation is warranted. For one thing, supercharged productivity growth, which an intelligence explosion would likely produce, is hard to find in the data. For another, a New York Fed survey of firms released last year found that AI was having a negligible effect on hiring.
In other words: did we scare ya? Good, because it got you to read this far. Nothing to actually see here.
Of course it's legal. They offer you money to exclusively post on their platform. Joe Rogan got paid to exclusively podcast on spotify. All of the talking heads on TV news are paid to exclusively be on their specific channel (ABC,NBC,FOX,etc.) The twitch streamer, Ninja, that got paid to move from twitch to Microsft's failed Mixer platform, etc. etc..
This is an extremely low-quality answer which in no way correctly represents the complexity underlying the question.
GP would need to talk to an antitrust expert to learn more useful information concerning the distinction between being a monopoly, and illegally leveraging monopoly power. I am not such a person, so I’m not going to say more here.
No it’s definitely not illegal. Companies hire consultants, influencers, contractors all the time to help them improve their product, brand, positioning etc. It could be an issue if the influencers have a contract with TikTok and Meta encourages them to break it. Then it becomes tortious interference. Also, IANAL but I took a business ethics class in college that covered this topic.
Contracts are a fundamental part of common law, why would it be illegal to enter one?
Also, it’s a big leap to prove that exclusive agreements to post on a specific platform is attempting to bury a competitor, TikTok (and every other company) is free to offer exclusivity contracts as well.
If you phrase it like that, sure. But I'm positive that's not how meta phrased it.
Everyone at Meta needs to take a "communicating with care" course every year which exactly trains you to hide your true intentions and not leave a paper trail of anti-competitive statements.
There is no source saying they don’t promote cheaper music just like Spotify does.
Also they pay to the rights-holders exactly the same as Spotify, which is 70% of your subscription. It just happens that Spotify has on average a lower revenue per stream, but for your particular use they both pay the same thing.
