The differnce being one of how central it is. A printer is an 'accesory'. The ability to make a printer yourself to do the job better isn't a gigantic goal. However, improving your ability to add on that printer to whatever environment is valuable.
Here, it's more like your operating system and all development tools are closed source, *but* you can write javascript to run inside the OS browser, and the OS provides all sorts of open source samples to get started. The central experience is locked down and not open, with a very patronizing versions of 'look open source!'.
This is pretty much the world of cloud providers (and much of the IT industry in general).
I would say that companies have been more agressive about recruiting folks who show a willingness to do open source, as they know if they don't assert control over it, it will ruin the business.
The open source software in the lates 90s/early 2000s were every bit as complex as most commercial endeavors, which is why they succeeded. Modern software isn't any more fundamentally more difficult to pull off in open source than it used to be, but prominent open source developers are far more quickly employed at far bettwer salaries than in the 90s.
So it's not the rising complexity of the software, it is the will of the providers to pay a lot more to avoid contending with a lot of grass roots competition. Of course still good on those developers.
extending the terminal standard to be able to make GUIs and audio.That way you could have remote audio and GUI without modifying ssh
In both the cases of Wayland and Pulseaudio, the ability to have remote is a secondary concern. Pulseaudio is about having an architecture for having multiple sound sources intelligently mixed together. There were a few, but ultimately pulseaudio won out. Prior to those solutions, only one application could have audio at a time. In other mixer solutions, you could not adjust application audio independently. The fact that pulseaudio transport could be over IP was a very secondary target. Now it had a very rocky road and would as likely screw up as help you.
In Wayland, the goal was to simplify the graphics implentation compared to XFree86, discarding a bunch of stuff that does not make sense. Of course this threw the baby out with the bathwater by completely cocking up remoting, though at this point every application uses a backend that is both X and wayland and every backend that is wayland is also being an X server, so they aren't exactly jumping at fixing this solution. In principle, Xpra shows the way, intercepting and remoting not through X primtives, but via the NETWM and compositor interface. This should be an inspriation to Wayland, but Wayland seems to have no idea what to do about it.
Also, ssh is very capable at all sort of arbitrary streams already. The difficult part is not putting it over ssh, it is serializing to a network channel and doing the work on both ends of managing that.
The simple answer is "Because it's a lot of work."
No, it's because this is by design. They open source enough to improve image and maybe help get started, but keep closed anything that they think is fundamental to their strategy. This is not just google. Among the known cloud vendors, not *one* open sources any of their backend software. They all have something home grown. They have plenty of open source libraries to act as a client to their back end software, but software that is useless for interoperabilty between vendors or building your competing system. They also enjoy posting articles that *claim* to tell you how they do things, but proceed to omit any actionable details and lay on the buzzwords thick instead. Those articles are crafted to make it sound *really* hard and that they are so clever, but without actually reveling their hand or helping anyone in the slightest. They seem designed to make people feel intimated at the prospect of managing their own infrastructure by making the task seem far more exotic and arcane than it is.
It's not just cloud vendors. There are many electronic devices with open source libraries, but they only work with the respective closed firmware implementations.
I'd say broadly a transformation in standards and open source has happened in the last 15 years or so. In the late 90s you had this overwhelming emergence of standardization and openness in the industry. AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy et al gave way to the federated internet, IETF had a great body of standards and looking at the authors of the standards, they almost always including 'customers' alongside vendors. Linux began overwhelming the Unix market, and this inspired a lot of exploration of open source software. Over the past 15 years, people are locking away a lot of their infrastructure in distinct proprietary cloud providers. The web is more and more about helping people access the social network of the day, none of which are the least bit federated (discarding net neutrality will further reinforce this). You look at 'standards' and the authors are pretty much *always* on the vendor side now, and strangely these 'standards' don't facilitate interoperabilty, but give the vendors a way to claim they are using an industry standard without actually doing anything that would help in the way a standard should.
In short, standards, open source, and the internet all blindsided the vendors when it first took hold of the industry. Over time, the vendors have mastered the art of manipulating those things to their benefit, to let people *feel* like they are continuing the great open revolution, all while the gardens are being walled and the customers are getting locked into their vendors by using the newest 'standard' to interact with product.
His point was that Mozilla upended IE's dominance through being *different* and better. In this case, there's a lot of areas where Mozilla is trying to compete with Chrome by being the same as it's competitor, which seems limited in upside.
Under the covers and in more nuanced ways, Firefox is very distinct, but there's certainly a lot of cosmetic things that give the impression of being chrome-like at every turn.
It is true that superficially, Firefox does tend to make a lot of changes that make it cosmetically resemble chrome, and maybe even sacrifice some of it's own flexibility in pursuit of tighter security and performance (with a vague set of promises about being able to deliver those experiences again over time, but we will see).
However, it remains a distinct implementation, which is valuable. More concretely, they are not baking in various 'hard-baked-to-google' decisions into the browser. It may not be a perfect situation, but it's not as bad as all that.
Because their ownership of '.dev' can be transient. Hypothetically it could be transferred to someone else, or even taken away from Google.
The point is we have a DNS infrastructure explicitly designed to designate *current* ownership without forever commiting the current owner to be the future owner.
This is of course true, but bad practice. I disagree with the idea of baking in this sort of thing into the browser software, however whenever you stray from officially reserved values, you can land in a world of pain.
For example, you use '.dev' for your internal sites. Sure, you control DNS and you can do that. Suddenly, a workstation needs access to something google is hosting on.dev. Suddenly, you have a self-inflicted wound because you didn't stick to private use reserved values, and you don't have a clean way out of reconciling this.
This is accurate, but it's also damn peculiar for google to go in and declare policy for domains independent of the HSTS headers and such. They own.dev today, tomorrow, they might not.
It's bad policy to hard bake assumptions about what company owns what domain into a browser.
But to all people making internal sites, the answers are your own domain or.test (.invalid and.example would work too).
If that was the scenario, I couldn't imagine how that would lead to Rubin being forced to leave Google (he's not exactly a rank and file, 'zero-tolerance' HR policies tend to have wiggle room when it comes to such well-known leaders in a company, unless said company thinks they could have a legal problem, which they wouldn't if it were as described.
Even assuming Google is insane and would force out Rubin, it seems strange for him to be forced to step away from his *new* company, just based on that sort of scenario from the old company. One it has no bearing on his current situation, and for another Rubin is *more* critical to Essential than he was to Google.
No, he was accused of *something* by this woman, though we have no idea what and whether or not it's true. Whether it was him making up/imagining a consensual relationship and sexually harassing, or her making up accusations after a bad breakup, or an initially consensual encounter/relationship that he pushed too far for her comfort (making unwelcome requests/remarks after the breakup, whatever). We can only make wild guesses, but it's something awkward whatever it is.
I think it warrants a more balanced perspective, we have a woman who is anonymous (and probably wants to remain so) and Rubin. The silence of someone who probably wants to just stay out of it cannot be 'safe to assume' to be in agreement with Rubin. Rubin can't avoid the spotlight and *must* say something and he sure as hell isn't going to say something bad about himself if he can help it, and depending on the woman's situation, she may never want to come forward to challenge.
We can neither condemn him nor white knight for him with the given information, as it reasonably would look the same way if it was a jilted ex or a victim that doesn't want to revisit this situation in depth. All we can really do is recognize this as bad news for Essential.
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because she just wanted him away.
We are not privy to the subtlety and nuance of the situation, so it's unreasonable to assume it is one thing or the other. After a healthy dose of PR and an anonymous complaint, it's impossible to determine what really happened.
Because 'Essential' had basically one big selling point for it: From the big Android guy formerly of Google. Without that, all that venture capital will stall out and the company is pretty well doomed, as they don't have a sustainable business model yet and need the investment to keep going.
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either: -She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making -It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
it does favor YouTube's free tier over sites that charge for hosting and sharing video.
Either way, you pay for the transit of data, so if youtube doesn't charge you, your isp does. Your ISP can easily elect (and frequently does) to have caps that mitigate bandwidth hogs. Youtube is not, for example, advantaged in cost over a cable companies situation. In fact, the cable company has lower costs by keeping things in the family already. Youtube pays for things with ads and subscriptions, and your service provider bills you for your usage. I don't see how adding an additional arbitrary knob for ISPs to penalize companies for not being established players does anything to make anything vaguely more fair in any sense of the word.
. Net-neutrality proponents are like people who want to regulate the deodorant market to make sure that only four standard deodorant choices are offered.
It would be the opposite, the ISPs selecting the 3 or 4 'deodorant' brands that succeed, startups have even less of a hope of competing. The ISPs will require even more money to play in the streaming space.
The problem here is in a micro scale, a plan can look like it's good for the consumer. In the macro scale, it means the customer is denied a competitor that may ultimately deliver a better experience.
If the government says "we want transit on the Internet to function in ways favorable to YouTube", then they are very much picking winners and losers. And that is what net neutrality is.
Net neutrality is precisely not that, it is not favor YouTube over Vimeo, it's treat YouTube and Vimeo equally. Removing net neutrality means that so long as Google pays for it, YouTube can be favored over Vimeo. What you describe is the exact opposite of net neutrality.
So, a perfect plan for my parents. But you don't want them to have that plan available to them because you want to force people to subsidize all streaming sites.
No, I want the ISPs to advertise '2GB/month' and be done with it, for a basic tier, and you pay according to transfer rates per second and per month, not according to whether my preferred streaming provider has entered some promotional relationship with my ISP.
The parade of horribles you invent is not profit-maximizing.
It very much is profit-maximizing, otherwise they wouldn't bother with this campaign at all. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Yes, Google and friends aren't exactly doing it for 'good and moral reasons', but in aggregate they also happen to be on the side that maintains at least one facet of new companies being able to enter the market on fair terms (there are lots of other challenges, but that's not a reason to exacerbate it this way).
That analysis presumes that ISPs will try to charge new entrants more than they will charge Netflix. That's a ludicrous assumption.
No, it's the reality of how this will play out: -A basic plan for 'generic' internet with a relatively low cap, useless for any new business to do high-bandwidth things, one that would be rejected out of hand by consumers today because it's useless. -That basic plan is, however, made acceptable to consumers by having 'exemptions' for blessed content providers (like netflix and such), and then consumers buy that plan or isp gets the plan subsidized by netflix and google, so suddenly it's ok, just need to stick to youtube and netflix and the cheap plan works.
We've already seen this exact thing play out on T-mobile, where they had '2GB/month, *but* youtube and netflix won't count, you want content from Vimeo? Tough, you'll have to pay more for Vimeo than from Youtube because youtube played ball and vimeo didn't.
it results in higher charges to people who put heavy demands on infrastructure and lower charges to people who use the Internet only very lightly. Great, mission accomplished.
No, I'm saynig the per-user rate in aggregate will raise for *everyone*, as they revel in the ability to nickle and dime any useful content and brands and offer an advertising friendly useless 'basic' tier to show how cost competitive they are. Further, net neutrality allows the companies to adjust pricing to hit the heavy usage, but it doesn't allow non-technical criteria to factor in so they can't for example favor youtube over netflix so long as they both have the same network demand.
That worries me far less than the federal government picking the winners and losers, which is what it would do under FCC administration of net neutrality.
No, the federal government doesn't pick the winners and losers. If redbox suddenly ousts netflix because the FCC mandates that redbox has fair access as netflix, that's not the government picking a winner. Absent of net neutrality, then new competitors have a business problem to deal with each and every provider on top of capital problems to compete with established players.
You're saying that of all the greedy, selfish corporations who usually want to create barriers to entry, just by accident Netflix, Google, Facebook, and a bunch of other mega corps argue for net neutrality out of benevolence? Of course not.
No, their motivation is not to be gouged, flat and simple. They can and do pursue unfair lockout in other methods(e.g. baking it into the client OS device, which is another big problem), and they don't want to have to pay for yet another avenue of lock in when they are doing just fine with the lock-ins they already have.
that means costs for services like Netflix and YouTube will go up significantly. New entrants into the market, on the other hand, are simply covered by their existing ISP agreements and it's not worth for ISPs to try to push for higher payments out of them.
No, they'll have a 'generic' service with some crazy low cap like 2GB/month which will break any non-whitelisted streaming site and to get 'unlimited streaming' you'll have to buy a package, and those packages will be exclusive to the providers that have paid their pound of flesh to the ISP. Net neutrality allows for a user that does 20GB/month to be billed differently than a 2GB/month, which would capture the whole 'no fair, netflix and youtube are a ton of data, and the light users don't need to bear the burden'. This should be entirely sufficient, as it's based on the technical burden rather than the business relationship, but the ISPs want to pull the business relationship into it because it is a huge part of what makes things like cable and satellite profitable, and they would love to 'cableify' the internet.
Notice how full access costs pretty much the same under both "net neutrality" and "no net neutrality"
That illustration is of course flawed. There's no way it would cost the same, because all that specific example pricing would do is reduce revenue.
Sure, maybe the *average* user monthly fee wil lbe the same, but guarantee over the long run the per-user rate would increase, with them pointing to useless entry tiers as a way to say they are providing an affordable option.
Without net neutrality, Netflix and Netflix users need to pay slightly more on average, but others need to pay slightly less.
The cellular providers already have an answer to that, it's called indiscriminate throttling and caps based on amount of data transferred. You are a light user, fine, 2GB/month should more than cover you. It's not like 5GB/month of netflix is more or less expensive of 5 GB/month of youtube, and yet that is the sort of distinction being asked for. It's to get their pound of flesh from the internet companies and to enable complex plans that make for slicker marketing (it's really hard to advertise the rather boring reality of being a dumb pipe).
The worrying part is that the ISPs get to pick the winners and losers. I have a new internet streaming service, tough, Netflix has paid to be 'the' preferred streaming provider, creating a tough barrier of entry to the market.
In this case it's paying ZT *and* AT&T or Verizon a ransom. Which easily illustrates *why* this is utter crap, the owner of the wire still has supreme veto power, so all a solution like ZT can do is give you warm fuzzies.
Here the enemy of your enemy is still not your friend.
Yes, the 'big tech' companies relish their ability to connect freely with people and exploit them, and given half a chance, they'll do stuff to lock you in harder to their control (hello FireOS, Android). Yes they selfishly want to keep the telco companies from effectively holding those precious users hostage and denying them their subscribers and/or ad impressions. Yes everyone should be scared about that situation.
However it's not like AT&T and Verizon are wanting to jump into this fray to give you back your privacy or break some hold of propaganda, they are jumping in to extract more money out of the arrangement. In fact, it is highly likely ISPs will start doing more things to harm competition, but get paid more for it. Like the controversial 'binge on' where t-mobile would let you stream all you wanted, but only from netflix, youtube, and a few others, but if you get content from a non-blessed site, you paid extra. The end game by ISPs is to advantage their home-gown content (which 'big tech' doesn't like), gouge the big tech companies as much as they can get away with (also what they don't want) and in all likelihood to start selling restricted services so you have to add-on access as you want (Imagine a 'facebook only' cost reduced plan), here those big tech companies might not be so unhappy. Yes Amazon might be unhappy that they have to pay more to get their AWS customores fair access, but they will be less unhappy when they start advertising how they can negotiate with the big carriers so you can enjoy better access to visitors to your AWS site as part of your AWS service.
Slashdot Mirror
The differnce being one of how central it is. A printer is an 'accesory'. The ability to make a printer yourself to do the job better isn't a gigantic goal. However, improving your ability to add on that printer to whatever environment is valuable.
Here, it's more like your operating system and all development tools are closed source, *but* you can write javascript to run inside the OS browser, and the OS provides all sorts of open source samples to get started. The central experience is locked down and not open, with a very patronizing versions of 'look open source!'.
This is pretty much the world of cloud providers (and much of the IT industry in general).
I would say that companies have been more agressive about recruiting folks who show a willingness to do open source, as they know if they don't assert control over it, it will ruin the business.
The open source software in the lates 90s/early 2000s were every bit as complex as most commercial endeavors, which is why they succeeded. Modern software isn't any more fundamentally more difficult to pull off in open source than it used to be, but prominent open source developers are far more quickly employed at far bettwer salaries than in the 90s.
So it's not the rising complexity of the software, it is the will of the providers to pay a lot more to avoid contending with a lot of grass roots competition. Of course still good on those developers.
extending the terminal standard to be able to make GUIs and audio.That way you could have remote audio and GUI without modifying ssh
In both the cases of Wayland and Pulseaudio, the ability to have remote is a secondary concern. Pulseaudio is about having an architecture for having multiple sound sources intelligently mixed together. There were a few, but ultimately pulseaudio won out. Prior to those solutions, only one application could have audio at a time. In other mixer solutions, you could not adjust application audio independently. The fact that pulseaudio transport could be over IP was a very secondary target. Now it had a very rocky road and would as likely screw up as help you.
In Wayland, the goal was to simplify the graphics implentation compared to XFree86, discarding a bunch of stuff that does not make sense. Of course this threw the baby out with the bathwater by completely cocking up remoting, though at this point every application uses a backend that is both X and wayland and every backend that is wayland is also being an X server, so they aren't exactly jumping at fixing this solution. In principle, Xpra shows the way, intercepting and remoting not through X primtives, but via the NETWM and compositor interface. This should be an inspriation to Wayland, but Wayland seems to have no idea what to do about it.
Also, ssh is very capable at all sort of arbitrary streams already. The difficult part is not putting it over ssh, it is serializing to a network channel and doing the work on both ends of managing that.
The simple answer is "Because it's a lot of work."
No, it's because this is by design. They open source enough to improve image and maybe help get started, but keep closed anything that they think is fundamental to their strategy. This is not just google. Among the known cloud vendors, not *one* open sources any of their backend software. They all have something home grown. They have plenty of open source libraries to act as a client to their back end software, but software that is useless for interoperabilty between vendors or building your competing system. They also enjoy posting articles that *claim* to tell you how they do things, but proceed to omit any actionable details and lay on the buzzwords thick instead. Those articles are crafted to make it sound *really* hard and that they are so clever, but without actually reveling their hand or helping anyone in the slightest. They seem designed to make people feel intimated at the prospect of managing their own infrastructure by making the task seem far more exotic and arcane than it is.
It's not just cloud vendors. There are many electronic devices with open source libraries, but they only work with the respective closed firmware implementations.
I'd say broadly a transformation in standards and open source has happened in the last 15 years or so. In the late 90s you had this overwhelming emergence of standardization and openness in the industry. AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy et al gave way to the federated internet, IETF had a great body of standards and looking at the authors of the standards, they almost always including 'customers' alongside vendors. Linux began overwhelming the Unix market, and this inspired a lot of exploration of open source software. Over the past 15 years, people are locking away a lot of their infrastructure in distinct proprietary cloud providers. The web is more and more about helping people access the social network of the day, none of which are the least bit federated (discarding net neutrality will further reinforce this). You look at 'standards' and the authors are pretty much *always* on the vendor side now, and strangely these 'standards' don't facilitate interoperabilty, but give the vendors a way to claim they are using an industry standard without actually doing anything that would help in the way a standard should.
In short, standards, open source, and the internet all blindsided the vendors when it first took hold of the industry. Over time, the vendors have mastered the art of manipulating those things to their benefit, to let people *feel* like they are continuing the great open revolution, all while the gardens are being walled and the customers are getting locked into their vendors by using the newest 'standard' to interact with product.
His point was that Mozilla upended IE's dominance through being *different* and better. In this case, there's a lot of areas where Mozilla is trying to compete with Chrome by being the same as it's competitor, which seems limited in upside.
Under the covers and in more nuanced ways, Firefox is very distinct, but there's certainly a lot of cosmetic things that give the impression of being chrome-like at every turn.
It is true that superficially, Firefox does tend to make a lot of changes that make it cosmetically resemble chrome, and maybe even sacrifice some of it's own flexibility in pursuit of tighter security and performance (with a vague set of promises about being able to deliver those experiences again over time, but we will see).
However, it remains a distinct implementation, which is valuable. More concretely, they are not baking in various 'hard-baked-to-google' decisions into the browser. It may not be a perfect situation, but it's not as bad as all that.
This is also true, though I'm pretty sure that none of the .dev users are in this boat.
Because their ownership of '.dev' can be transient. Hypothetically it could be transferred to someone else, or even taken away from Google.
The point is we have a DNS infrastructure explicitly designed to designate *current* ownership without forever commiting the current owner to be the future owner.
This is of course true, but bad practice. I disagree with the idea of baking in this sort of thing into the browser software, however whenever you stray from officially reserved values, you can land in a world of pain.
For example, you use '.dev' for your internal sites. Sure, you control DNS and you can do that. Suddenly, a workstation needs access to something google is hosting on .dev. Suddenly, you have a self-inflicted wound because you didn't stick to private use reserved values, and you don't have a clean way out of reconciling this.
This is accurate, but it's also damn peculiar for google to go in and declare policy for domains independent of the HSTS headers and such. They own .dev today, tomorrow, they might not.
It's bad policy to hard bake assumptions about what company owns what domain into a browser.
But to all people making internal sites, the answers are your own domain or .test (.invalid and .example would work too).
.test is a better replacement, strictly speaking, since IETF has reserved that TLV (as well .example and .invalid).
Of course, it's pretty damn weird for a browser to hard bake assumption about TLD ownership and policy.
If that was the scenario, I couldn't imagine how that would lead to Rubin being forced to leave Google (he's not exactly a rank and file, 'zero-tolerance' HR policies tend to have wiggle room when it comes to such well-known leaders in a company, unless said company thinks they could have a legal problem, which they wouldn't if it were as described.
Even assuming Google is insane and would force out Rubin, it seems strange for him to be forced to step away from his *new* company, just based on that sort of scenario from the old company. One it has no bearing on his current situation, and for another Rubin is *more* critical to Essential than he was to Google.
No, he was accused of *something* by this woman, though we have no idea what and whether or not it's true. Whether it was him making up/imagining a consensual relationship and sexually harassing, or her making up accusations after a bad breakup, or an initially consensual encounter/relationship that he pushed too far for her comfort (making unwelcome requests/remarks after the breakup, whatever). We can only make wild guesses, but it's something awkward whatever it is.
Because either:
-She was made uncomfortable by improper interactions with Rubin
-Rubin was unfairly smeared by a relationship with a subordinate
He wouldn't be having to leave his 'Essential' endeavor behind if neither person was a victim.
I think it warrants a more balanced perspective, we have a woman who is anonymous (and probably wants to remain so) and Rubin. The silence of someone who probably wants to just stay out of it cannot be 'safe to assume' to be in agreement with Rubin. Rubin can't avoid the spotlight and *must* say something and he sure as hell isn't going to say something bad about himself if he can help it, and depending on the woman's situation, she may never want to come forward to challenge.
We can neither condemn him nor white knight for him with the given information, as it reasonably would look the same way if it was a jilted ex or a victim that doesn't want to revisit this situation in depth. All we can really do is recognize this as bad news for Essential.
why would she then proceed to sex?
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because she just wanted him away.
We are not privy to the subtlety and nuance of the situation, so it's unreasonable to assume it is one thing or the other. After a healthy dose of PR and an anonymous complaint, it's impossible to determine what really happened.
Because 'Essential' had basically one big selling point for it: From the big Android guy formerly of Google. Without that, all that venture capital will stall out and the company is pretty well doomed, as they don't have a sustainable business model yet and need the investment to keep going.
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either:
-She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making
-It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
it does favor YouTube's free tier over sites that charge for hosting and sharing video.
Either way, you pay for the transit of data, so if youtube doesn't charge you, your isp does. Your ISP can easily elect (and frequently does) to have caps that mitigate bandwidth hogs. Youtube is not, for example, advantaged in cost over a cable companies situation. In fact, the cable company has lower costs by keeping things in the family already. Youtube pays for things with ads and subscriptions, and your service provider bills you for your usage. I don't see how adding an additional arbitrary knob for ISPs to penalize companies for not being established players does anything to make anything vaguely more fair in any sense of the word.
. Net-neutrality proponents are like people who want to regulate the deodorant market to make sure that only four standard deodorant choices are offered.
It would be the opposite, the ISPs selecting the 3 or 4 'deodorant' brands that succeed, startups have even less of a hope of competing. The ISPs will require even more money to play in the streaming space.
The problem here is in a micro scale, a plan can look like it's good for the consumer. In the macro scale, it means the customer is denied a competitor that may ultimately deliver a better experience.
If the government says "we want transit on the Internet to function in ways favorable to YouTube", then they are very much picking winners and losers. And that is what net neutrality is.
Net neutrality is precisely not that, it is not favor YouTube over Vimeo, it's treat YouTube and Vimeo equally. Removing net neutrality means that so long as Google pays for it, YouTube can be favored over Vimeo. What you describe is the exact opposite of net neutrality.
So, a perfect plan for my parents. But you don't want them to have that plan available to them because you want to force people to subsidize all streaming sites.
No, I want the ISPs to advertise '2GB/month' and be done with it, for a basic tier, and you pay according to transfer rates per second and per month, not according to whether my preferred streaming provider has entered some promotional relationship with my ISP.
The parade of horribles you invent is not profit-maximizing.
It very much is profit-maximizing, otherwise they wouldn't bother with this campaign at all. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Yes, Google and friends aren't exactly doing it for 'good and moral reasons', but in aggregate they also happen to be on the side that maintains at least one facet of new companies being able to enter the market on fair terms (there are lots of other challenges, but that's not a reason to exacerbate it this way).
That analysis presumes that ISPs will try to charge new entrants more than they will charge Netflix. That's a ludicrous assumption.
No, it's the reality of how this will play out:
-A basic plan for 'generic' internet with a relatively low cap, useless for any new business to do high-bandwidth things, one that would be rejected out of hand by consumers today because it's useless.
-That basic plan is, however, made acceptable to consumers by having 'exemptions' for blessed content providers (like netflix and such), and then consumers buy that plan or isp gets the plan subsidized by netflix and google, so suddenly it's ok, just need to stick to youtube and netflix and the cheap plan works.
We've already seen this exact thing play out on T-mobile, where they had '2GB/month, *but* youtube and netflix won't count, you want content from Vimeo? Tough, you'll have to pay more for Vimeo than from Youtube because youtube played ball and vimeo didn't.
it results in higher charges to people who put heavy demands on infrastructure and lower charges to people who use the Internet only very lightly. Great, mission accomplished.
No, I'm saynig the per-user rate in aggregate will raise for *everyone*, as they revel in the ability to nickle and dime any useful content and brands and offer an advertising friendly useless 'basic' tier to show how cost competitive they are. Further, net neutrality allows the companies to adjust pricing to hit the heavy usage, but it doesn't allow non-technical criteria to factor in so they can't for example favor youtube over netflix so long as they both have the same network demand.
That worries me far less than the federal government picking the winners and losers, which is what it would do under FCC administration of net neutrality.
No, the federal government doesn't pick the winners and losers. If redbox suddenly ousts netflix because the FCC mandates that redbox has fair access as netflix, that's not the government picking a winner. Absent of net neutrality, then new competitors have a business problem to deal with each and every provider on top of capital problems to compete with established players.
You're saying that of all the greedy, selfish corporations who usually want to create barriers to entry, just by accident Netflix, Google, Facebook, and a bunch of other mega corps argue for net neutrality out of benevolence? Of course not.
No, their motivation is not to be gouged, flat and simple. They can and do pursue unfair lockout in other methods(e.g. baking it into the client OS device, which is another big problem), and they don't want to have to pay for yet another avenue of lock in when they are doing just fine with the lock-ins they already have.
that means costs for services like Netflix and YouTube will go up significantly. New entrants into the market, on the other hand, are simply covered by their existing ISP agreements and it's not worth for ISPs to try to push for higher payments out of them.
No, they'll have a 'generic' service with some crazy low cap like 2GB/month which will break any non-whitelisted streaming site and to get 'unlimited streaming' you'll have to buy a package, and those packages will be exclusive to the providers that have paid their pound of flesh to the ISP. Net neutrality allows for a user that does 20GB/month to be billed differently than a 2GB/month, which would capture the whole 'no fair, netflix and youtube are a ton of data, and the light users don't need to bear the burden'. This should be entirely sufficient, as it's based on the technical burden rather than the business relationship, but the ISPs want to pull the business relationship into it because it is a huge part of what makes things like cable and satellite profitable, and they would love to 'cableify' the internet.
Notice how full access costs pretty much the same under both "net neutrality" and "no net neutrality"
That illustration is of course flawed. There's no way it would cost the same, because all that specific example pricing would do is reduce revenue.
Sure, maybe the *average* user monthly fee wil lbe the same, but guarantee over the long run the per-user rate would increase, with them pointing to useless entry tiers as a way to say they are providing an affordable option.
Without net neutrality, Netflix and Netflix users need to pay slightly more on average, but others need to pay slightly less.
The cellular providers already have an answer to that, it's called indiscriminate throttling and caps based on amount of data transferred. You are a light user, fine, 2GB/month should more than cover you. It's not like 5GB/month of netflix is more or less expensive of 5 GB/month of youtube, and yet that is the sort of distinction being asked for. It's to get their pound of flesh from the internet companies and to enable complex plans that make for slicker marketing (it's really hard to advertise the rather boring reality of being a dumb pipe).
The worrying part is that the ISPs get to pick the winners and losers. I have a new internet streaming service, tough, Netflix has paid to be 'the' preferred streaming provider, creating a tough barrier of entry to the market.
paying ZT a ransom instead of AT&T or Verizon.
In this case it's paying ZT *and* AT&T or Verizon a ransom. Which easily illustrates *why* this is utter crap, the owner of the wire still has supreme veto power, so all a solution like ZT can do is give you warm fuzzies.
Here the enemy of your enemy is still not your friend.
Yes, the 'big tech' companies relish their ability to connect freely with people and exploit them, and given half a chance, they'll do stuff to lock you in harder to their control (hello FireOS, Android). Yes they selfishly want to keep the telco companies from effectively holding those precious users hostage and denying them their subscribers and/or ad impressions. Yes everyone should be scared about that situation.
However it's not like AT&T and Verizon are wanting to jump into this fray to give you back your privacy or break some hold of propaganda, they are jumping in to extract more money out of the arrangement. In fact, it is highly likely ISPs will start doing more things to harm competition, but get paid more for it. Like the controversial 'binge on' where t-mobile would let you stream all you wanted, but only from netflix, youtube, and a few others, but if you get content from a non-blessed site, you paid extra. The end game by ISPs is to advantage their home-gown content (which 'big tech' doesn't like), gouge the big tech companies as much as they can get away with (also what they don't want) and in all likelihood to start selling restricted services so you have to add-on access as you want (Imagine a 'facebook only' cost reduced plan), here those big tech companies might not be so unhappy. Yes Amazon might be unhappy that they have to pay more to get their AWS customores fair access, but they will be less unhappy when they start advertising how they can negotiate with the big carriers so you can enjoy better access to visitors to your AWS site as part of your AWS service.