He does make valid points though. There can be a time and place for 996, like when one forms their own new business. And indeed it is easier to do when you're young, healthy, and unencumbered by spouse / kid obligations.
Of course working those hours doesn't guarantee anything. There are multiple paths to success and multiple ways to evaluate when you get there.
I've been on Slashdot since 1996 or 1997 and I have gone through my phase of using any number of p2p software pieces for obtaining whatever media I preferred to watch; however, these ended when I became an adult who could easily afford any of these services.
What do I do now that Disney isn't on my preferred streaming services? I either choose to pay for it or I don't and my kids don't watch it. But, even though I did it in the past, I *never* once consider torrents as an option for consuming this and, if I think this way, the vast majority of people in the world do as well.
So, to answer your question, no, they don't consider it as as a factor.
They should. I also used file sharing sites and stopped for the same reasons. Additionally for me it wasn't just economics, it was that they finally worked out how to deliver consistent quality timely content at a reasonable price that is easy to access.
The problem now is with all these walled gardens, they are changing the deal. The hassle factor is going back up and content is becoming unavailable based on which subscriptions you do or don't have. I have already chosen not to have 10+ different subscriptions just to use the services a handful of times for a movie or two. I believe the result of this will be to push more people back to p2p.
Although it won't happen in the current environment, the most consumer friendly streaming solution would be to create a compulsory license for movies and TV much like what radio has. All content is available to everyone for a set royalty rate per use.
Soon there will be even more content spaced out over an additional service offering. With the other major studios to follow with their own subscriptions (if they haven't done so already). To say nothing about the inevitable price increases, which we all *know* are coming. Youtube TV announced a $10 per month bump yesterday. Netflix is going up again. At a $6.99 price point The Mouse is already under the market average. How long are they expected to leave money on the table?
I cut the cord last year and tried out three different tv alternative services along with subscriptions to Hulu, Netflix, etc. The thing that became clear very quickly is mere "browsing" for something to watch is time consuming. With the way content was fractured I found it next to impossible. I realize there are websites that allow users to search the streaming sites for specific content, but this is becoming a pain in the ass. Heaven forbid if you don't know exactly what you want to watch at that moment.
We're back on cable now. For me most of the time the tv is background noise. I'll watch the local news at night. Maybe some American Football and some basketball. Content is fungible. The price differential is increasingly negligible ($72 vs $100 in this case).
Well, good for Ford. GM and others are plunging headlong into this and creating a race of lemmings. Perhaps Ford looked at this and has decided to "pump the brakes" (haha) on the technology. It takes leadership to go against the herd and ask questions like that.
Now "leadership" doesn't necessarily equate to a correct assessment. He could be mis-evaluating the state of the technology and be flat-ass wrong. Or he could have saved the company billions of lost dollars trying to keep up with the other sheep in the herd. Only time will tell.
Autonomous driving is a VERY complex problem, and while it may be 90% solved, that last 10% will likely take us decades to perfect. I wouldn't expect fully autonomous cars to be the norm for probably 40-50 more years.
Heck just look at the situation Boeing is in right now. Aviation is arguably a much easier task to automate, because there are fewer other vehicles around (and the ones that do typically have transponders announcing their location), and the environment is much more structured as to procedures, yet they've had multiple planes crash due to faulty sensors and autopilot related functions.
Electric cars - sure, they'll be the norm in 10-15 years. Autonomous though? It'll be a while.
Based on how airplane autopiolot has developed, I think the above is a much more realistic view of what self driving cars will look like.
Auto pilot was invented in 1914 and has been in airplanes ever since in one form or another. And they can handle a lot of the day-to-day flying between point A and point B. But none of them do take offs. The most advanced ones can do landings to a degree, but when you start getting into low visibility they have problems. As a general rule landings are still done by pilots. And that is with 100+ years of development to date.
Looking at cars, I could see self driving cars within 5 years doing much of the long distance driving as it usually involves constant speeds on dry well marked interstate roads. The human would be available to take over once the car has to exit to city streets or weather issues develop. Doing that would cover the vast majority of market needs and would probably keep car buyers relatively happy.
Criminal lawyer here. This isn't surprising, it's mission creep.
The vast majority of county jails already use sponsored VOIP calling systems. And they too are AWFUL. A 10 - 15 minute phone call will cost $20. The audio quality sucks. It sounds far away, it has popping sounds. It randomly disconnects.
And it was only a matter of time before the vultures came up with ways to further infiltrate the jails.
There is no technical reason why it should cost as much as it does. The reason is because the vendors give revenue kickbacks to the counties. Additionally they give subsidies to the jails in the form of free equipment. What they don't do is upgrade the ISP. Jails are still technologically low tech places and many (especially in rural areas) have bare minimum internet connections that are quickly saturated by even a few video sessions.
This is exploitation and revenue generation from a desperate and generally poor population.
This forum is filled with niche uses. Yes, of course this won't work for CAD / video / specialized people. Most (non-slashdot) people are already weaned off computers and use phones / tablets for their personal use. If they use a computer at all it's at work where they neither know nor care how they get their desktop, how their apps or delivered, or where their data is stored.
It makes too much operational, security, and economic sense not to.
I was wondering the same. Guess one of those "niche uses" will be those who use their computers from remote cabins, cruise ships, and generally places outside major cities.
No shit?
What cracks me up is the nudnik from the article that is preparing to buy *another pair*. As my grandfather use to say, "Don't let the same dog bite ya twice."
Friends and family call me paranoid. I keep data and GPS turned off most of the time and don't install apps. This leads to the logical question on why carry a smart phone. The reality is they are *just* useful enough. That time once a week when I need directions. Or need to carry tickets to an event or check-in with an airline.
The reality is you're going to be tracked. The question is how much data you choose to give up. As with other forms of privacy (financial, medical, personal) the system is setup so that the default posture is wide open full disclosure. You can change it, but that takes education and effort........and doing so causes inconvenience. That's by design.
Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way
Are you creeped out that some big corporation will make the ad revenue on her son's gymnastics video (to the extent that she doesn't)?
Did you castigate America's Funniest Home Videos when they'd send somebody $100 for a tape? What's the objective criteria here?
If someone is swimming in shark infested waters and is then attacked, it is a waste of time to be mad at the shark for doing what is in its nature.
I am not about to waste time and aggravation at Youtube / Google for it was not they that posted the video to begin with.
It's scummy behavior, don't get me wrong. But it's predictable and expected given who you're dealing with.
Youtube / Google would have had no opportunity for profit had the mother made a different decision.
Also don't white knight for her too much.......it would appear she has an entire channel dedicated to trying to monetize her kid and gymnastics. She has made her choice.
Nonsense. You can forgo the items listed above. You *do* have a choice. Of course it's one that carries with it consequences in terms of convenience and modern living. Previous generations also had this choice. We are use to paying certain utility bills every month for water, sewer, electricity, etc. 60+ years ago this was not automatic. Many did not like having reoccurring bills of this sort because they felt it was a form of servitude (I don't necessarily disagree). So they chose to go without. The result of their choice is that they found themselves "free" but increasingly isolated as their homes lacked running water, indoor bathrooms, air conditioning, etc.
Living free usually means living different. That's still true today.
Well no, that's not all they say. They also complain about why their shithole neighborhoods don't have the same opportunities as more well off neighborhoods. And that can be a valid concern as the residents are tax paying citizens too. But their "choices" as far as lifestyle goes has far reaching effects in terms of the cities at large. Neighborhoods like that become havens for crime and generational poverty. If one wants to live in squalor, that's their god given right. What they *don't* get to do is have their personal choices become externalities on everyone else.
One cannot complain about their poor neighborhoods needing improvement but then also complain about how that problem is solved. To just give money to these neighborhoods without changing the fundamentals of how the people live and function would be to throw these funds away.
Sure, but I don't have any sympathy. Social media is made up of an army of nudniks that willingly give their creations away for others to monetize. They knew the score going in.
The fact that Youtube was willing to deal them in to begin with was rare and generous. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyway that they want to change the deal now.
Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way. It's not a platform to share "OMG cute!" videos anymore. It's "Hey Austin, do something adorable so mama and dada can make this month's mortgage payment".
Also lost in this lady's question, but probably very relevant, was Youtube's announcement the other day that they had identified videos that had high pedo interest. One of the top categories *drum roll* Youth gymnastics videos. It is possible that Youtube's actions were an attempt to prevent sickos from looking at her kid!
Quote:
It seems to be a daily occurrence where we have crossed another line in how far we will go to accept massive surveillance as normal. Do we even have a line the sand that we would defend? Do we even see anything wrong with it? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we continue to give knowledge of our personal lives (power) to others. If we continue down the same path, I suppose we deserve what we get? I want to shout "Stop the train, I want off!" but I fear my plea would be ignored.
----
Subby laments these losses of privacy, but I have to wonder:
Do you have Alexa in your house?
Do you use a debit / credit card?
Do you have a smart tv?
Do you drive a car made after about 2007?
Do you carry a cell phone?
There are *many* way more intrusive things going on than being recorded in public places.
Are you living your convictions and actually reducing your surveillance footprint, or are you just lamenting on Slashdot?
The plan as I understood it was a mixture of jobs. Many of their incentives were tied to the number of $150,000+ jobs created, but there were to be other opportunities as well (presumably jobs the less skilled locals could do). I don't know what the ratio was suppose to be. But beyond that HQ2 isn't the type of industry one normally finds in poor neighborhoods (junk yards, recycling, heavy industry, high polluting manufacturing, etc). You just don't find white collar office jobs relocating to these kinds of areas. That in and of its self was an intriguing possibility for the neighborhood.
The answer to your last question is, frankly, some locals wouldn't last too long......in any redevelopment scenario. Even if this were a straight warehouse paying blue collar wages ($15 - $30 an hour) there would still be more money in the local community that would drive up housing and force some people out. The difference here is that HQ2 would have created a huge wage ceiling which would have a rippling effect on the entire neighborhood. And there would absolutely be peripheral development such as restaurants, grocery stores, etc. A higher economic demographic also brings better municipal offerings like libraries, parks, college branches, etc. All this sounds like an improvement over where the area is now.
Your argument almost seems to be that a project like HQ2 would be "too good" for the neighborhood. Opportunities that can remake entire neighborhoods are few and far between.
Realistically, NYC was going to get their jobs, but they were also going to all the ballooning housing prices and other issues that are plagueing places like San Francisco, Seattle, and all the other tech boom towns. That's what the root of the protests were about; sticking up for the current residents who were probably going to end up being priced out of their own neighbourhoods and trying to provide them with some safeguards.
At $15,000 average income this sounds like a shitty economically blighted neighborhood. So in order to improve said neighborhood there has to be an economic driver. Any economic driver capable of making that kind of impact, be it Amazon or a Walmart Distribution Center, or anything else of like size will cause some disruption and displacement. More money chasing housing means rent will go up. Values will increase which will also increase property taxes.
All that is by design part of economic development. You can't take a shitty neighborhood, add opportunity, make it somewhat less shitty, and avoid pricing out the prior occupants of the formerly more shitty neighborhood.
Either way you try to make that omelette's, some eggs are going to break. If there is a job center in the area then at least there might be an option to subsidize some housing. Without that job center, it's just another shitty broke neighborhood into which money is poured.
I doubt Google would hold such a thing against the attorney. The law firm is paid to win the case. Cleaning up the aftermath is why they have a PR department.
Lawyers are taught from the beginning to think and plead "in the alternative" which sounds much more sophisticated than "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" or "bury the judge in bullshit and see what he'll buy". This is particularly true when playing defense.
Lawyers operate like the litigation realm is some isolated 4th dimension quasi-universe where the rules of time, space, and physics don't apply and what they put in their pleadings does not have real world consequences. It can and does. But should this be any of the attorney's concern? Making these arguments may cause additional headwinds for your client in the Real World(tm). Not making the argument may cause them to lose a winnable case which could have repercussions on the client and the (ineffective) lawyer.
And even the paid âoetrustedâ apps are one private buyout away from being in unknown hands.
If youâ(TM)re an app developer who happens to stumble on something people like and would pay for and someone wants to buy it for a couple million......
Slashdot Mirror
Are they worth the investment? Or perhaps wait for something that can do 3D space like a hologram projector? Or perhaps enhanced reality glasses?
......for him and his bottom line.
He does make valid points though. There can be a time and place for 996, like when one forms their own new business. And indeed it is easier to do when you're young, healthy, and unencumbered by spouse / kid obligations.
Of course working those hours doesn't guarantee anything. There are multiple paths to success and multiple ways to evaluate when you get there.
Disney+ and chill?
"Why don't you have a seat over there."
I've been on Slashdot since 1996 or 1997 and I have gone through my phase of using any number of p2p software pieces for obtaining whatever media I preferred to watch; however, these ended when I became an adult who could easily afford any of these services.
What do I do now that Disney isn't on my preferred streaming services? I either choose to pay for it or I don't and my kids don't watch it. But, even though I did it in the past, I *never* once consider torrents as an option for consuming this and, if I think this way, the vast majority of people in the world do as well.
So, to answer your question, no, they don't consider it as as a factor.
They should. I also used file sharing sites and stopped for the same reasons. Additionally for me it wasn't just economics, it was that they finally worked out how to deliver consistent quality timely content at a reasonable price that is easy to access.
The problem now is with all these walled gardens, they are changing the deal. The hassle factor is going back up and content is becoming unavailable based on which subscriptions you do or don't have. I have already chosen not to have 10+ different subscriptions just to use the services a handful of times for a movie or two. I believe the result of this will be to push more people back to p2p.
Although it won't happen in the current environment, the most consumer friendly streaming solution would be to create a compulsory license for movies and TV much like what radio has. All content is available to everyone for a set royalty rate per use.
Soon there will be even more content spaced out over an additional service offering. With the other major studios to follow with their own subscriptions (if they haven't done so already). To say nothing about the inevitable price increases, which we all *know* are coming. Youtube TV announced a $10 per month bump yesterday. Netflix is going up again. At a $6.99 price point The Mouse is already under the market average. How long are they expected to leave money on the table?
I cut the cord last year and tried out three different tv alternative services along with subscriptions to Hulu, Netflix, etc. The thing that became clear very quickly is mere "browsing" for something to watch is time consuming. With the way content was fractured I found it next to impossible. I realize there are websites that allow users to search the streaming sites for specific content, but this is becoming a pain in the ass. Heaven forbid if you don't know exactly what you want to watch at that moment.
We're back on cable now. For me most of the time the tv is background noise. I'll watch the local news at night. Maybe some American Football and some basketball. Content is fungible. The price differential is increasingly negligible ($72 vs $100 in this case).
Well, good for Ford. GM and others are plunging headlong into this and creating a race of lemmings. Perhaps Ford looked at this and has decided to "pump the brakes" (haha) on the technology. It takes leadership to go against the herd and ask questions like that.
Now "leadership" doesn't necessarily equate to a correct assessment. He could be mis-evaluating the state of the technology and be flat-ass wrong. Or he could have saved the company billions of lost dollars trying to keep up with the other sheep in the herd. Only time will tell.
Autonomous driving is a VERY complex problem, and while it may be 90% solved, that last 10% will likely take us decades to perfect. I wouldn't expect fully autonomous cars to be the norm for probably 40-50 more years.
Heck just look at the situation Boeing is in right now. Aviation is arguably a much easier task to automate, because there are fewer other vehicles around (and the ones that do typically have transponders announcing their location), and the environment is much more structured as to procedures, yet they've had multiple planes crash due to faulty sensors and autopilot related functions.
Electric cars - sure, they'll be the norm in 10-15 years. Autonomous though? It'll be a while.
Based on how airplane autopiolot has developed, I think the above is a much more realistic view of what self driving cars will look like.
Auto pilot was invented in 1914 and has been in airplanes ever since in one form or another. And they can handle a lot of the day-to-day flying between point A and point B. But none of them do take offs. The most advanced ones can do landings to a degree, but when you start getting into low visibility they have problems. As a general rule landings are still done by pilots. And that is with 100+ years of development to date.
Looking at cars, I could see self driving cars within 5 years doing much of the long distance driving as it usually involves constant speeds on dry well marked interstate roads. The human would be available to take over once the car has to exit to city streets or weather issues develop. Doing that would cover the vast majority of market needs and would probably keep car buyers relatively happy.
Criminal lawyer here. This isn't surprising, it's mission creep.
The vast majority of county jails already use sponsored VOIP calling systems. And they too are AWFUL. A 10 - 15 minute phone call will cost $20. The audio quality sucks. It sounds far away, it has popping sounds. It randomly disconnects.
And it was only a matter of time before the vultures came up with ways to further infiltrate the jails.
There is no technical reason why it should cost as much as it does. The reason is because the vendors give revenue kickbacks to the counties. Additionally they give subsidies to the jails in the form of free equipment. What they don't do is upgrade the ISP. Jails are still technologically low tech places and many (especially in rural areas) have bare minimum internet connections that are quickly saturated by even a few video sessions.
This is exploitation and revenue generation from a desperate and generally poor population.
This forum is filled with niche uses. Yes, of course this won't work for CAD / video / specialized people. Most (non-slashdot) people are already weaned off computers and use phones / tablets for their personal use. If they use a computer at all it's at work where they neither know nor care how they get their desktop, how their apps or delivered, or where their data is stored.
It makes too much operational, security, and economic sense not to.
I was wondering the same. Guess one of those "niche uses" will be those who use their computers from remote cabins, cruise ships, and generally places outside major cities.
No shit?
What cracks me up is the nudnik from the article that is preparing to buy *another pair*. As my grandfather use to say, "Don't let the same dog bite ya twice."
Welcome back.
Friends and family call me paranoid. I keep data and GPS turned off most of the time and don't install apps. This leads to the logical question on why carry a smart phone. The reality is they are *just* useful enough. That time once a week when I need directions. Or need to carry tickets to an event or check-in with an airline.
The reality is you're going to be tracked. The question is how much data you choose to give up. As with other forms of privacy (financial, medical, personal) the system is setup so that the default posture is wide open full disclosure. You can change it, but that takes education and effort........and doing so causes inconvenience. That's by design.
Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way
Are you creeped out that some big corporation will make the ad revenue on her son's gymnastics video (to the extent that she doesn't)?
Did you castigate America's Funniest Home Videos when they'd send somebody $100 for a tape? What's the objective criteria here?
If someone is swimming in shark infested waters and is then attacked, it is a waste of time to be mad at the shark for doing what is in its nature.
I am not about to waste time and aggravation at Youtube / Google for it was not they that posted the video to begin with.
It's scummy behavior, don't get me wrong. But it's predictable and expected given who you're dealing with.
Youtube / Google would have had no opportunity for profit had the mother made a different decision.
Also don't white knight for her too much.......it would appear she has an entire channel dedicated to trying to monetize her kid and gymnastics. She has made her choice.
Nonsense. You can forgo the items listed above. You *do* have a choice. Of course it's one that carries with it consequences in terms of convenience and modern living. Previous generations also had this choice. We are use to paying certain utility bills every month for water, sewer, electricity, etc. 60+ years ago this was not automatic. Many did not like having reoccurring bills of this sort because they felt it was a form of servitude (I don't necessarily disagree). So they chose to go without. The result of their choice is that they found themselves "free" but increasingly isolated as their homes lacked running water, indoor bathrooms, air conditioning, etc.
Living free usually means living different. That's still true today.
Well no, that's not all they say. They also complain about why their shithole neighborhoods don't have the same opportunities as more well off neighborhoods. And that can be a valid concern as the residents are tax paying citizens too. But their "choices" as far as lifestyle goes has far reaching effects in terms of the cities at large. Neighborhoods like that become havens for crime and generational poverty. If one wants to live in squalor, that's their god given right. What they *don't* get to do is have their personal choices become externalities on everyone else.
One cannot complain about their poor neighborhoods needing improvement but then also complain about how that problem is solved. To just give money to these neighborhoods without changing the fundamentals of how the people live and function would be to throw these funds away.
Sure, but I don't have any sympathy. Social media is made up of an army of nudniks that willingly give their creations away for others to monetize. They knew the score going in.
The fact that Youtube was willing to deal them in to begin with was rare and generous. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyway that they want to change the deal now.
Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way. It's not a platform to share "OMG cute!" videos anymore. It's "Hey Austin, do something adorable so mama and dada can make this month's mortgage payment".
Also lost in this lady's question, but probably very relevant, was Youtube's announcement the other day that they had identified videos that had high pedo interest. One of the top categories *drum roll* Youth gymnastics videos. It is possible that Youtube's actions were an attempt to prevent sickos from looking at her kid!
Quote:
It seems to be a daily occurrence where we have crossed another line in how far we will go to accept massive surveillance as normal. Do we even have a line the sand that we would defend? Do we even see anything wrong with it? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we continue to give knowledge of our personal lives (power) to others. If we continue down the same path, I suppose we deserve what we get? I want to shout "Stop the train, I want off!" but I fear my plea would be ignored.
----
Subby laments these losses of privacy, but I have to wonder:
Do you have Alexa in your house?
Do you use a debit / credit card?
Do you have a smart tv?
Do you drive a car made after about 2007?
Do you carry a cell phone?
There are *many* way more intrusive things going on than being recorded in public places.
Are you living your convictions and actually reducing your surveillance footprint, or are you just lamenting on Slashdot?
The plan as I understood it was a mixture of jobs. Many of their incentives were tied to the number of $150,000+ jobs created, but there were to be other opportunities as well (presumably jobs the less skilled locals could do). I don't know what the ratio was suppose to be. But beyond that HQ2 isn't the type of industry one normally finds in poor neighborhoods (junk yards, recycling, heavy industry, high polluting manufacturing, etc). You just don't find white collar office jobs relocating to these kinds of areas. That in and of its self was an intriguing possibility for the neighborhood.
The answer to your last question is, frankly, some locals wouldn't last too long......in any redevelopment scenario. Even if this were a straight warehouse paying blue collar wages ($15 - $30 an hour) there would still be more money in the local community that would drive up housing and force some people out. The difference here is that HQ2 would have created a huge wage ceiling which would have a rippling effect on the entire neighborhood. And there would absolutely be peripheral development such as restaurants, grocery stores, etc. A higher economic demographic also brings better municipal offerings like libraries, parks, college branches, etc. All this sounds like an improvement over where the area is now.
Your argument almost seems to be that a project like HQ2 would be "too good" for the neighborhood. Opportunities that can remake entire neighborhoods are few and far between.
Realistically, NYC was going to get their jobs, but they were also going to all the ballooning housing prices and other issues that are plagueing places like San Francisco, Seattle, and all the other tech boom towns. That's what the root of the protests were about; sticking up for the current residents who were probably going to end up being priced out of their own neighbourhoods and trying to provide them with some safeguards.
At $15,000 average income this sounds like a shitty economically blighted neighborhood. So in order to improve said neighborhood there has to be an economic driver. Any economic driver capable of making that kind of impact, be it Amazon or a Walmart Distribution Center, or anything else of like size will cause some disruption and displacement. More money chasing housing means rent will go up. Values will increase which will also increase property taxes.
All that is by design part of economic development. You can't take a shitty neighborhood, add opportunity, make it somewhat less shitty, and avoid pricing out the prior occupants of the formerly more shitty neighborhood.
Either way you try to make that omelette's, some eggs are going to break. If there is a job center in the area then at least there might be an option to subsidize some housing. Without that job center, it's just another shitty broke neighborhood into which money is poured.
Yep, I smell an NSA plant. Lift your kilt and show yourself.
I doubt Google would hold such a thing against the attorney. The law firm is paid to win the case. Cleaning up the aftermath is why they have a PR department.
Disclaimer: IAAL
Lawyers are taught from the beginning to think and plead "in the alternative" which sounds much more sophisticated than "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" or "bury the judge in bullshit and see what he'll buy". This is particularly true when playing defense.
Lawyers operate like the litigation realm is some isolated 4th dimension quasi-universe where the rules of time, space, and physics don't apply and what they put in their pleadings does not have real world consequences. It can and does. But should this be any of the attorney's concern? Making these arguments may cause additional headwinds for your client in the Real World(tm). Not making the argument may cause them to lose a winnable case which could have repercussions on the client and the (ineffective) lawyer.
And even the paid âoetrustedâ apps are one private buyout away from being in unknown hands. If youâ(TM)re an app developer who happens to stumble on something people like and would pay for and someone wants to buy it for a couple million......