What kind of argumentation is this? Just because someone decides to show stuff, everybody else is also required to show themselves?
e.g. If I go to a theater where the actors are clearly identified, I have to be okay to get a facial scan as well?
Some people tend to demonize porn, and it might be unethical in their eyes, but fact is: it is not illegal (in most countries).
I don't argue that there are issues in the porn industry, but this is an issue with the platforms, that they don't allow the upload of non-consentual material, or and have processes to take it down. This is a 'THEIR' problem (the platform not the victims).
There some of these issues also exist in the standard movie and music industry as well. Hell, it even goes up to company executives and politics. But this is up to law enforcement do their job and to remove the illegal stuff and prosecute the involved persons, not by branding everyone as a suspect.
Funnily enough, there is also the exact opposite discurse in the US regarding firearms; where one side says: that firearms need to somehow be restricted and and it needs more checks to buy a gun.
But then the Industry tells the story that in that case only the 'good guys' get restricted, since the 'bad guys' don't really follow the law anyways.
Where with Anti-cheat and DRM only the 'good guys' get hit, since the 'bad guys' don't follow "the law" anyways.
One big hurdle, I guess most new pythonistas stumble over, is the one where you add an create an empty default list in a class:
You would think it creates a new empty list, for each object of this class, but it actually creates one which is shared between all of the objects. I had a lot of fun with that one once.
> but it actually creates one which is shared between all of the objects
More precisely: it creates one which belongs to the class. Everything inside the `class` block is thus - both data and methods. After all, the methods are not special - from the class' perspective, they are just functions, and functions are objects, and they become attributes of the class object the same way as "ordinary data". (Further: the `def` statement is a form of assignment.)
"Methods" don't really exist ahead of time; they're created on demand when they're looked up from an instance, found in a class, and furthermore discovered to implement the descriptor protocol. The interesting part is that looking up an attribute on an instance can find it in the class. That's what allows method calls to work properly (in Python's implementation) without storing per-instance data — objects representing the "bound" method are instead created on demand (and typically thrown away right after)! This is necessary because anywhere that `foo.bar()` is valid, `foo.bar` must also be valid, and furthermore needs to evaluate to something — since it's a subexpression of a valid subexpression, and Python has no "void return values", only a strong expression/statement distinction. This feature also enables you to do `baz = foo.bar; baz()`.
(There are several sources I could quote for all of this, but usually it's tangential to what the source is actually trying to discuss.)
More fundamentally, Python beginners often fail to distinguish assignment from mutation. So they are further surprised when `instance.items.append(item)` affects the other instances, but `instance.items = [item]` does not. But this is entirely to be expected: assignment to an instance attribute only ever stores it within the instance, and does not look it up or replace it in the class. Of course it doesn't — if it did, there would be no way to implement `__init__`. And now that the instance has a separate attribute with the same name, that shadows the class' attribute, and will be found by future lookups on that instance only.
not the one who asked the questions, but I actually think 4% are not enough.
If Google or Meta makes 10% of their earnings with that shit and they have to pay max 4% they still have a 6% margin over - not doing it.
IMHO there should be a 4% fine additionally to paying back all the illegally generated earnings. Also, more executives should go to jail for it - And that's the C-Level Executives, because it's them which are accountable.
Problem with those things: usually it still hits the little ones harder than the big players...
When the whole SaaS stuff started to pop up as buzzword I actually believed that it would work that way.
You don't pay some heavy license fees for a local installation anymore, but get a login where you get billed a specific amount if you use it that day/week/month etc.
I was pretty sad when I saw how it got implemented...
I see what you are suggesting here, I see the same trend but I think the reason why is not the one you are implying.
The HN community, in most topics, is against censoring, echo chambers and that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything without being called out.
IMHO there are two impacted groups here:
a) the ones who block everything and everyone that doesn't agree with them (on a public platform)
b) the ones who are harassed and stalked and need to use the block as a defense
the change is bad for people in group b) - which most people can agree on. The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem (it's the equivalent of the EU's great idea of DNS blocking). There should be a system in place that actual (online) harassment can be legally pursued and prevented.
against group a), I think the change is a net-positive
This somehow reminds me of the TV show "Supernatural" where Angels need 'consent' of the people to possess their body. Which basically is "they said yes", and often how they get the 'yes' contains a lot of deceit (pretending to be someone else etc) misdirection and even torture...
If it didn't work they wouldn't do it (and when it stops working they will find something else). Advertising is pretty insidious. I have been adblocking most things for over a decade now and thought I was mostly saving myself from annoyance and wasted time, but in the last 4-5 years in youtube video ads from creators themselves showed up. I only discovered sponsorblock last year so I've only been using it for around a year and it's interesting to see my own unnoticed positive biases to brands where the advertising was previously sneaking through just melt away. Now when I watch a video that is too new or obscure for someone to have marked the ads with sponsorblock I am back to getting annoyed and wondering why I ever thought positive thoughts about this brand in the first place. If this stuff is having this effect on me (highly disagreeable personality, above average but not genius level intelligence, made a living trading commodities calling bullshit on the concensus opinion) then the rest of the world must be screwed.
I am assuming spending as much as they are on advertising would weaken them to the point that a non advertising competitor would destroy them eventually. I don't see much of that so i assume it works. I also have my own noticed response to advertising to go on.
I don't know if I believe that... I can see companies falling for the politician's fallacy (We must do something -> this is something -> we must do this). They have money to spend to promote their product, advertising is a well known way to spend money to promote a product, therefore they buy advertising.
Yeah, I'm pretty torn up between those points. It is probably the only way to get non-Microsoft into the workflow of people, which reduces the lock-in syndrom with companies, where they use MS products because it's the one thing people know.
on the other hand it's an advertising company getting devices with their software to the kids, combined with often IT-Admins School Directors which don't understand how to create policies and implement them correctly.
