The escooters also are supposedly equipped with cameras and other deterants. Has anyone ever gotten in trouble for kicking them in to a bush when they are in the way?
A few years ago I was visiting a friend of mine in Ft. Lauderdale. We wanted some scooters to ride around on but there were none near him, so we drove and grabbed some off the sidewalk in downtown and threw them in the drunk and went back to his house. Heh they were beeping and vibrating like how you’d imagine some AGI would while being kidnapped. When we got them out at his house we scanned using the app and they unlocked no problem. (I think these were Lime scooters)
This is what I'm currently doing sans tailscale. I'm running Ubooquity on a server in my homelab as my OPDS service to serve the ebooks hosted on a mounted NAS. I can download any of those books from my Kobo with a few presses on Koreader. It's pretty great. My Kobo Forma is probably one of my best and most used tech purchases. I've had it since 2019 and couldn't be happier with the device + setup. Getting it set up with tailscale so I can fetch ebooks when I'm away from home sounds like a pretty good upgrade.
The best outcome would be for all of the bids to fail, all the streaming services would bleed money due to people sick of the siloing, and for there to be multiple streaming services competing on experience because they all have access to the same catalog.
The second best outcome would be the cartoon villain Larry not getting what he wants.
Which is why the model that would actually be good for consumers and the model that absolutely no content producer wants which is splitting content creation from distribution isn't going to happen. Let a bunch of companies compete over being the best streaming platform and then let those companies all compete for licensing deals for content.
I think a big copyright holders in a strange way actually don't want a repeat of cable. They want all content to be exclusive by default to their own streaming service.
When you make something (eg TV shows), you might also want a direct relationship with your customer (eg viewer). Consequently, A platform where you get to choose how to present and celebrate the stories seems like a reasonable thing.
In the US, the film industry originally worked like the streaming industry does today. Besides just creating films, the major studios distributed them through the theaters they owned. If you wanted to see a Paramount film you had to go to a Paramount owned theater, if you wanted to see an MGM film you had to go to an MGM owned theater, and so on. In 1948, this distribution scheme was ruled to be in violation of antitrust law and the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theaters. Now you can see major films in any studio and the theaters have to compete on price and amenities. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to streaming services.
Here in Norway we have a law for mobile carriers which is intended to prevent moats. It states that carriers must provide access for a "reasonable price" to other phone companies. It seems to have worked fairly well.
One could imagine something similar, that sure you can put your own movie or TV show on your own website, but you must also sell it to companies who asks on reasonable terms. So Netflix can make a movie but couldn't say no to say Plex if they wanted to buy the rights to show it on Plex.tv.
This is completely different. Cell phone infrastructure in particular is by nature a natural monopoly. Two carriers can’t operate over the same frequency and only certain frequencies are conducive for cell phones.
Content has no such restriction. Are you really saying every piece of content anyone produces must be licensed? Who decides what is “reasonable”?
No, just media production companies on their own streaming service. There is no reason to pretend that billion dollar, publicly traded companies are poor college kids just trying to get noticed on the Internet for their quirky videos.
Okay, and if they move ownership and production outside of the country and stream it from their website ate yoi going to block them from streaming to the US?
How is that law going to apply to Sony who is Japanese owned and CrunchyRoll?
Do we force PluralSight and Udacity to share their content? YouTube creators?
I prefer poisoning my ad profile instead of passively blocking with Ad Nauseum https://adnauseam.io/ . It uses Ublock origin under the hood. I've got my click rate set to high but not 100%.
Ad Nauseum is snakeoil. Their FAQ states that they "click" on ads by sending a XHR request[1]. As you might imagine, this is easily detectable, and given how rampant ad fraud is, fake "clicks" like those are almost certainly filtered by every ad network. Otherwise anyone with a botnet would be able to easily make millions of fake clicks with a few lines of javascript.
> This lightweight request signals a 'click' on the server responsible for the Ad, but does so without opening any additional windows or pages on your computer. Further it allows AdNauseam to safely receive and discard the resulting response data, rather than executing it in the browser, thus preventing a range of potential security problems (ransomware, rogue Javascript or Flash code, XSS-attacks, etc.) caused by malfunctioning or malicious Ads.
You might be thinking of TrackMeNot, which does use tabs (iirc).
From google's perspective it operates as a botnet consuming their resources and creating doubt as to the validity of their product among advertisers (disclaimer: I am not defending their business at all). That's the goal, but costing the advertisers themselves money doesn't necessarily follow.
I just created separate profiles for different stuff. Work is all on chrome anyways due to google integration, so all thats left in my random browsing.
Ordered in what I use the most -
Fanfics, novels - profile 1.
Netflix, others - profile 2.
General browsing - profile 3.
There were a ton of votes cast to stop kids from being vaccinated against childhood diseases, to block funding to the rural hospitals serving those communities, raise taxes via tariffs, and to let government accounts troll with memes. Those communities decided those were all worth it if brown and black people suffered.
This "poor" farmer claims to be sad about it in front of his flags of support of the administration. He refuses to understand what he actually voted for. But he is an adult that absolutely voted for it https://dataviz.whro.org/virginia-farmer-on-edge/index.html
Is there a self hosted solution that will allow me to back up all my Gmail emails including attachments? Something like paperless but for my old emails.
The constant pestering by Google to buy storage space has started pushing me to deleting everything more then a few years old as a stepping stone to leaving Gmail completely.
When Netflix started losing shows did they lower their price to allow users to sign up for competing services? The price just went up for everyone in reality.
No but there's very little I deeply care about watching, including live TV. I definitely pay less for video content than I was paying 5 years or so ago. Netflix has been on my bubble for a while. We'll see what happens with this news.
And I already have Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ through other bundles I have for other reasons. We'll see.
Yeah, I'm not sure if the best response from society is to simply stop appreciating an entire genre of human art. I mean, I get it, but like... we can't just keep giving up more and more lovely things forever, right? We shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense, and snarkily clocking out doesn't seem like the answer. Some of us want to continue to have a rich variety of movies and TV shows, and we shouldn't let a very wealthy few control that.
Or maybe we shouldn't put art as a concept on a pedestal.
Why is it threatening that someone like me just walks away from it, or even (gasp) criticizes it? To me, media feels like something almost parasitic, exploiting FOMO and social status seeking (and yes, social media included).
reply