The next revolution won't be a bigger model imo. It will be a way to run a gpt (at least 3.5) cheap and fast enough for real time text or vocal conversation on our phones or home devices.
Everyone will have a personal AI concierge, capable of consuming all their media and then re-displaying it for them with just the bits they want (no ads).
Yes, but it's an important point. Just because something is renewable in principle, it doesn't mean it's renewable in practice at scale. I think this is also true for some of the "but it's renewable" modern stuff.
If their work warranted the prices they want to charge, they wouldn't need an elaborate state apparatus to buttress their business model.
The same is true of the west Nashville music-finance complex. And of Hollywood. And of every industry rent-seeking around the restrictions on speech and press which are branded as "intellectual property".
This just happens to be a transparently egregious example, as they are literally trying to censor a FOSS project and make its contributors' speech invisible / illegal.
Can you elaborate how not wanting you to pirate the games they spent tons of money and labor in making is "rent-seeking" and a restriction on free speech? It seems like a stretch.
"This just happens to be a transparently egregious example, as they are literally trying to censor a FOSS project and make its contributors' speech invisible / illegal"
Give me a break. The only reason this software was FOSS, was for the creators to receive protection from useful idiots like you. We all know that the purpose of this project was to profit from piracy.
At some level, isn't the whole exercise of characterizing the copying of bytes as "piracy" just a way to justify invasive state policy?
We can observe that the nature of information is that it is free to copy. This is not a new observation; the myth of Prometheus tells us of this nature, and of the power that the gods foolishly attempt to shore up by pretending that it can't be copied.
Of course I agree that solid games are worth money, but if you have to avert your eyes to the entire evolution of the way information propagates in the universe in order to achieve that, you've gone down an incorrect path.
And yes, building entire media empires designed to leverage your right to distribute bytes as you see fit, while prohibiting others from distributing them under threat of violence, is most certainly rent-seeking.
The silly fiction that someone "owns" that information because of a previous historical event is not in keeping with any part of nature that I'm able to observe.
What makes anyone think that on sufficiently long time scales the internet will continue to abide this?
Ah I see, you've created an entire ideobabble to justify free-riding, on an absurd premise as well that "We can observe that the nature of information is that it is free to copy". This is the equivalent of "We can observe that the nature of animals is to kill each other for calories, so it's morally justified to murder other people and eat them."
...I mean, maybe there is some moral imperative toward vegetarianism. I don't see the connection with cannibalism; seems like you're just being a bit silly.
But I think we can make that decision without needing onerous and obstructive state infrastructure, so I don't think the comparison is particularly germane. Unless you are suggesting that it's the role of the state to stop animals from eating each other? (Isn't that the same impetus as suggesting it's the role of the state to stop data from replicating?)
Lastly, I think you've misunderstood the role of the free-rider problem in public goods, particularly in the application of building non-rivalrous markets; in fact, you have it exactly backwards.
It's a perfectly reasonable position to not give them your money. I thought we were talking about pirating their games though, which is worlds apart from voting with your wallet.
However, I do not see any good reason to not enjoy their games.
Yeah, if everyone does as I do, they go bankrupt. I do not care. Try not to be hated by people using your product, I guess.
Risky … if it’s automated, they could argue that you’re not actually making a conscious decision and/or not actually doing it yourself, claiming that it doesn’t apply or isn’t an unambiguous indication of your intent to knowingly opt out of whatever the next revision of the arbitration clause may be. It’s far more unclear how that would play out in (US) court than with a manual opt-out once per account per terms of service revision.
I agree that there should be more restrictions on this than there currently are in the US, but unless the composition of the US Supreme Court changes enough that they overrule their many recent arbitration-related precedents, we’re stuck with this unless and until Congress changes the law. Honestly, they’re not even legally required to allow an opt-out at all under current rulings, other than rejecting the terms of service entirely.
At least no constitutional amendment is required to fix this. These US Supreme Court rulings have been based on the Federal Arbitration Act, a regular statue, not on the Constitution (except as the source of Congress’s authority to override state law on this issue).
In the app we have released, we use an email (we don’t care which one, as long as it can receive email) as the login ID.
The main reason is to limit the data we require be stored on the server.
We only have one required PID item: the login ID. The user also enters a display name, but that can be anything, and does not need to be unique.
Since we need the email anyway, we would need to have it stored separately, so this means only one PID item is stored. We also afford Sign in with Apple, which allows the user to obfuscate their email.
Not having the information is the best way to ensure it doesn’t leak.
It's not fully arbitrary, but one can make an Apple ID from any email address or phone number (i.e. you can use a hotmail address if you like), both approaches dodge the issue mentioned since they're not obviously apple accounts.
However the issue with using something like a gmail or hotmail account is that instead of targeting Apple's servers, they just target Google and Microsoft's instead.
Well that's me shot out of the water! It looks like someone bought a brand name and got it a bit wrong, through lack of understanding but who cares when the cash is running in and its not harming anyone.
Sadly this rings too true, rather closer to home. I own a smart new EV - an MG4. MG is a long standing British Marque. I know my car is largely Chinese.
I went to school in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK which is where the Morris Garage originated. My dad drove an MG Midgit in the '60s. My mum owned a Morris 1000 (Moggie). My granddad (Morris Oxford) ... well you get the idea.
In the end you have to decide for yourself exactly what you get when you buy a brand or even what a brand means in the first place.
I quite like my car but I do "firewall" it somewhat - I'm an IT consultant by trade.
