What if the real story is how stupidly easy it is to upload your own music to the Spotify platform (and possibly how easy it is to fake listens with their API), and they don't want to let anyone know that door is still open?
To what ends? I think it would make a lot more sense that someone got in through APIs to upload music to the system and then used stolen creds to play those songs for royalty fees.
The only think this highlights is that Apple hasn't gotten their North America supply chains set up. If they need a certain size screw there's somebody in the western hemisphere willing to make it, they just have to give them the time to ramp up for demand.
The fact that we've gutted our own manufacturing industry isn't a sign of the hyperbolic statement that an iPhone never could be build here.
Google knows a lot about you: what you look like, how you sound, your favourite place to get coffee. But all that information stays within Google, it isn't handed over to the UK government, who can then use it to decide if you deserve a mortgage or can go on holiday.
Anyone who believes there isn't a major caveat to that statement should read When Google Met Wikileaks
Any evidence of this claim? What if calling a minstrel show is merely stating an observable fact?
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for "minstrel show" (emphasis mine):
The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was an American form of entertainment developed in the early 19th century. Each show consisted of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music performances that mocked people specifically of African descent. The shows were performed by white people in make-up or blackface for the purpose of playing the role of black people. There were also some African-American performers and all-black minstrel groups that formed and toured under the direction of white people. Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.
You are likening Diamond and Silk to playing a derogatory stereotype of "blackness" for the sole purpose of pleasing white people. You are claiming they are going against what you would consider "acceptable blackness", because they are black people who don't ascribe to the political beliefs that you think black people should have. You are being racist.
This is how I know that people of your ilk are in a state of mass delusion. I have seen left-wingers call minority conservatives every derivation of "race traitor" (which is what calling a black person a "minstrel show" is), and then, when caught in their racism, double down on some imagined "evilness" of anyone who should disagree with their behavior, as if their "progressiveness" makes them morally superior - no matter how abhorrent their actual behavior is.
A startup without at least one executive siphoning money out of the company accounts - or even worse, the employees - is a true unicorn. It's what turned me off to the whole scene.
Look, when we do automatic contact recognition we give the industry a real consumer benefit. And I think that’s sometimes lost in the whole story.
What real consumer benefit? Not having to type the movie name into IMDB to see who that character actor is? Is that really worth Visio knowing every fucking thing I watch?
Doing a find/replace on Mein Kampf to change the target of hate and getting it accepted by an accredited journal is quite a bit more than a "shoddy paper slipping through".
It's not as cut and dry as that anymore, for two reasons.
1) The way that our communications are structured in the 21st century, being banned from Twitter is like being kicked out of the "Taco Bell® Public Square". You are being banned from communicating with the public on the same level of people who don't violate wrong-speak and can stay on the platform.
2) "It's a private company and they can determine what content is allowed on their platform." Then they are editorializing and are legally liable for any libelous posts, just as any newspaper would be. Twitter can't play both sides. Either you're an open, public platform or you're not.
If the information age, data is a commodity that requires significant investment to produce. Therefore, how would this be any different than a fully-marxist state seizing of the means of production?
"Hosted Service" is too broad a term, in this instance. Courts have decided (wrongly IMO) that you can not only sell your own hosting of someone else's FOSS, you can slap your own logo on it and resell it as your own closed source solution, without even having to tell the customer what's actually under the hood.
They didn't break their own business model, the courts allow for people to take advantage of FOSS licensing in a way that hurts FOSS.
I use Gitlab, and actually prefer it to Github, but something is rotten in Denmark - or wherever Gitlab employees work from.
This is the second Gitlab "success" article in as many weeks, run on the Inc. site. The last one was "How This Startup Made $10.5 Million in Revenue With Every Single Employee Working From Home" (https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/2018-inc5000-gitlab.html).
Let's do some math. Assume that the $10.5M in revenue is gross - because they would say it was net if it was. Being very generous and valuing their average employee salary at $40K, that would put their payroll expenses at $14M.
There's no way that Gitlab is even close to profitable right now and, considering that both these articles were run on Inc., I'm assuming somebody got their palm greased.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the real story is how stupidly easy it is to upload your own music to the Spotify platform (and possibly how easy it is to fake listens with their API), and they don't want to let anyone know that door is still open?
To what ends? I think it would make a lot more sense that someone got in through APIs to upload music to the system and then used stolen creds to play those songs for royalty fees.
The only think this highlights is that Apple hasn't gotten their North America supply chains set up. If they need a certain size screw there's somebody in the western hemisphere willing to make it, they just have to give them the time to ramp up for demand. The fact that we've gutted our own manufacturing industry isn't a sign of the hyperbolic statement that an iPhone never could be build here.
Anyone who believes there isn't a major caveat to that statement should read When Google Met Wikileaks
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for "minstrel show" (emphasis mine):
You are likening Diamond and Silk to playing a derogatory stereotype of "blackness" for the sole purpose of pleasing white people. You are claiming they are going against what you would consider "acceptable blackness", because they are black people who don't ascribe to the political beliefs that you think black people should have. You are being racist.
This is how I know that people of your ilk are in a state of mass delusion. I have seen left-wingers call minority conservatives every derivation of "race traitor" (which is what calling a black person a "minstrel show" is), and then, when caught in their racism, double down on some imagined "evilness" of anyone who should disagree with their behavior, as if their "progressiveness" makes them morally superior - no matter how abhorrent their actual behavior is.
So what you're saying is it's ok to sling racial epithets at minorities who don't agree with you politically. So progressive.
A startup without at least one executive siphoning money out of the company accounts - or even worse, the employees - is a true unicorn. It's what turned me off to the whole scene.
What real consumer benefit? Not having to type the movie name into IMDB to see who that character actor is? Is that really worth Visio knowing every fucking thing I watch?
He's the only one who's an active professor.
Doing a find/replace on Mein Kampf to change the target of hate and getting it accepted by an accredited journal is quite a bit more than a "shoddy paper slipping through".
Stop and frisk has to be more successful
That's your confirmation bias.
If you want to get away with cybercrime in 2018, VPN out through Russia and nobody will want to dig any deeper.
It's not as cut and dry as that anymore, for two reasons.
1) The way that our communications are structured in the 21st century, being banned from Twitter is like being kicked out of the "Taco Bell® Public Square". You are being banned from communicating with the public on the same level of people who don't violate wrong-speak and can stay on the platform.
2) "It's a private company and they can determine what content is allowed on their platform." Then they are editorializing and are legally liable for any libelous posts, just as any newspaper would be. Twitter can't play both sides. Either you're an open, public platform or you're not.
If the information age, data is a commodity that requires significant investment to produce. Therefore, how would this be any different than a fully-marxist state seizing of the means of production?
"Hosted Service" is too broad a term, in this instance. Courts have decided (wrongly IMO) that you can not only sell your own hosting of someone else's FOSS, you can slap your own logo on it and resell it as your own closed source solution, without even having to tell the customer what's actually under the hood.
They didn't break their own business model, the courts allow for people to take advantage of FOSS licensing in a way that hurts FOSS.
I'm not doubting that they can or will be profitable, but let's save the "secret to their success" articles until that day.
I use Gitlab, and actually prefer it to Github, but something is rotten in Denmark - or wherever Gitlab employees work from. This is the second Gitlab "success" article in as many weeks, run on the Inc. site. The last one was "How This Startup Made $10.5 Million in Revenue With Every Single Employee Working From Home" (https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/2018-inc5000-gitlab.html). Let's do some math. Assume that the $10.5M in revenue is gross - because they would say it was net if it was. Being very generous and valuing their average employee salary at $40K, that would put their payroll expenses at $14M. There's no way that Gitlab is even close to profitable right now and, considering that both these articles were run on Inc., I'm assuming somebody got their palm greased.
It's more concerning how many people have their worldview shaped by Facebook ads and posts than by how those ads can be gamed.