masterspace

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

A reminder that anger is addictive, and social media fuels it.

Engagement driven algorithms that are let to run wild inherently pick up on this, and start feeding you anger inducing content. Even non engagement driven algorithms often end up doing this by accident.

And when we're angry, we think less clearly and empathetically, and we lash out and say more than we mean and make hurtful comments and generalizations.

That sparks anger in the person we're conversing with, which tends to create a feedback loop, also known as a fight.

If you actually want to have fun, engaging, conversations with people different then you, and learn something from them, it's a constant exercise in calmness, deescalation, and nuance, not things the internet trains us well for.

tl;dr: humans like to think we're highly evolved beings, but at the end of the day we're all basically these cats:

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

When you understand how RSUs work and what you're signing up for there's nothing inherently wrong with rewarding someone for years of service.

However, their structure / terminology is inherently misleading and manipulative.

A company could just give you stock at each performance review. It doesn't need to give you magic shares that need to be incubated before they hatch, it could just give you the actual shares they want to pay you at each point.

They don't because that would expose that they're actually giving you nothing in the first several years, and they want you to think you own part of the company when you don't.

Again, when you understand what they're actually offering then you go in eyes wide open, but they are intentionally trying to deceive people into thinking they're getting a reward earlier than they actually are.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Clickbait article. This is nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Perhaps so, but isn't that up to whoever creates the information?

No, what I'm saying is that at a fundamental physics level, information is inherently abundant in a way that nothing else made of matter or energy is. There is effectively zero cost to replicating it an infinite amount of times. That is fundamentally not true for anything made of energy or matter.

If you invent a story, why would you not be entitled to own it?

Why would you "own" it? If you tell a story what prevents me from also telling that story? The threat of you punching me if I tell my own copy when you're not around? That's not owning something that's unilaterally declaring that you own all copies of something and forever own all copies of it going forward. If I invent a white t shirt, should I be able to claim ownership of every white t-shirt that anyone makes forever? That's nonsense.

For much of human history, artistry of all sorts has been a profession, as much as a hobby. The idea of attribution and ownership over one's art has been a core part of why that has worked and allowed creators to thrive.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Honestly, the fact that you're making up such utter bullshit in addition to using thought terminating cliches really feels bad faith.

Because no, the idea of ownership of a song has virtually never been important to art. Professional artists, in the time periods where they have existed, have largely been able to because they would be constantly performing art in the era prior to recordings, and they would constantly be performing other people's songs that they did not write themselves or they would add their own twists to it.

A song like House of the Rising Sun can be traced all the way back to 16th century English hymns before eventually winding it's way through countless Appalachian and travelling singers, before being picked up by 50s era folk musicians, before being picked up by a British rock band called the Animals. This is how music has worked through literally all of human history until the abomination that is copyright.

Hell it wasn't until the classical music era, and the rise of sheet music that you actually started seeing real authorship granted to individual people, and even in that era you didn't own a song, if someone like Mozart could listen and transcribe it then they could also perform it themselves.

I would argue that the alternative of having no such system at all would ultimately lead to less art and information being created and shared at all, if the creation process is unsustainable at an individual creator's level.

Yeah, well it's a good thing there are lots of alternatives to copyright that aren't 'no system at all'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

which are both equally absurd and not really worth dissecting further.

Try having a conversation without resorting to thought terminating cliches.

And if that's what you took out of it you missed the point. And given the number of dismissive thought terminating cliches you keep using it does not seem like you actually care to learn or are having a good faith discussion.

If you are, you've missed the point, which is that information, at a fundamental, physics level, does not behave the same way as energy and matter. Computers make it essentially free to replicate information infinitely. That is not true for any physical good. The differences therein mean that information should be abundant, except that copyright and DRM create artificial scarcity where there is no need for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I've only been pointing out that copyright is dumb, not that piracy is wholly justified.

We got into this corner because you ignored the actual points I made about why copyright is dumb (read: a scarcity based system is not suitable for digital information since it is inherently unscarce) and focused on the age of copyright instead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

Oh, wow. I'm so impressed.

It's existed since the time of the transatlantic slave trade.

Surely that makes it something human and good!

Totally compares to the previous 2.75 Million years of story telling culture and tradition. Totally not just an exploitative artifact of the corporate age. /S

And go ahead and cite your favourite book on copyright. Maybe I'll read it. We're all sure you have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

It is 100% correct. There was no concept of owning a story or a song just because you told it first, throughout literally all of history until the copyright laws of the 20th century.

And my point is that the literal entirety of human culture is based on a tradition of storytelling, something copyright expressly forbids.

Copyright is not a system that aligns with our natural inclinations or the way we evolved. It's a crude, child like attempt to cram information into a capitalist mold that doesn't work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

,You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that,

Read the above comments then.

but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.

Again, read my comments. I didn't say it wasn't real, I said it has no basis in human culture or history.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Is the 30B calculated before or after Oracle arbitrarily increases their pricing for no reason?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

K, versus 2,750,000 years.

Here's 300 letter g's:

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggg

Here's 2.75 million letter h's


Oh wait, I can't paste that many because at 40 chars per line, it would be 68,000 lines long, or 1000x the Android clipboard's char limit.

You are literally describing a meaningless iota in the course of human history.

263
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Don't buy those crappy plastic bag-clips to hold chip bags, flour bags, etc closed. They're unsatisfying, they wear out and bend, and they just add more plastic pollution to the world.

Instead buy more binder clips. They're made from spring steel, they're strong as hell, they almost never wear out, they can be used to close bags, as small clamps, as hangers for almost anything in a pinch, and they're amazing for building pillow / blanket forts.

I have some from my grandma that she bought 30 years ago and they work just as well as the ones I bought a year ago. The only risk with them ever is rust, and you can just scrub that off with vinegar, add a brush of paint and it's fixed.

Truly some of my favourite robust little items.

 

I can't be the only reddit migrant who often instinctually goes to a given community by typing /r/community, only to be 404d. If the /r/ path isn't being used for anything else, is it possible to have it dynamically redirect to /c/ instead?

 

The federal New Democrats backed Conservative demands Wednesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau take part in a televised "emergency meeting" on carbon pricing with Canada's premiers.

The federal carbon price is not the "be-all, end-all" of climate policy, and New Democrats are open to alternative plans presented by premiers, NDP environment critic Laurel Collins said Wednesday.

 
view more: next ›