It drives the average wage down as well, as now employers have almost twice as many potential candidates and therefore don’t have to offer as competitive pay.
You’re speaking from the position of someone clearly privileged enough to afford all the services you’d like to continue using. There are vast swaths of t people for whom an additional monthly subscription to watch YouTube, have access to email, read the news, browse social media, etc just isn’t financially tenable.
Especially in the year 2023 where technology and internet access is so crucial to survival, I’d prefer for a low-income family to not have to choose between a meal and renewing their monthly email subscription.
>You’re speaking from the position of someone clearly privileged enough to afford all the services you’d like to continue using.
No, I'm speaking from the position of someone who believes we should use fewer (or even no) services, be it Gmail, or Figma or Spotify free tier, or whatever.
There's always FOSS software. There's also freemium (no ads, just reduced functionality to lure someone to the premium full-featured version), and of course freeware.
Ad-supported also has a cost: the ad-induced consumerist spending is one of the biggest expenses people make (disproportionaly so for poorer people). And there's also the jacking up of product costs to cover an ad budget. Plus the social cost in multitude of ways (from the advertisers having influence over the service provider, to personal data being harvested and sold).
This is a good thing. By requiring paid access to more websites, you might find there’s less people spewing garbage in comments sections etc, since they can’t really afford a bunch of accounts to just troll around.
I wouldn’t share that with people. It just makes you sound like you were a privileged entitled bum that took advantage of your less privileged friends hospitality.
Because that’s essentially what you were. Hopefully no longer.
Perhaps. I see it differnetly. I am privileged now with my nice job, back in the day I was just a kid who was trying to become independent adult without proper guidance and support from parents.
What I wanted to say is that young adults, regardless of their parent's social and financial status, need guidance and support in order to become independent and productive members of society. I got an impression that some people think that kids whose parents are well-off or rich always get it from their parents, so they are not entitled to get it from other sources (like scholarship, discounted housing, public transit, food, cultural institutions tickets for students etc.). That is not the case.
The fact that you felt the freedom to part and fuck off until 26 speaks to a degree of privilege and freedom that your safety net of parental wealth provided you that you don’t even seem aware of.
The most obvious scenario that comes to mind for me is, imagine an independent artists launching their (book/film/album/etc) and the same day someone with more resources and experience takes the work and markets it better than the OG author ever could on their own.
In a copyright-less system you’d monetize the creation (eg via patronage), so someone else distributing the work is fine, even helpful.
It makes no sense to add artificial scarcity to ideas, the cost of replication is inherently zero and all kinds of noxious consequences on society (like derivative works being impossible to create) shake out as a result. If the goal is encouraging creation why are you punishing and penalizing the creation of derivative works?
Letting megacorps monopolize popular culture for 100+ years after its inception is a relatively newfangled idea and it’s baffling that so many people just blindly accept that this is the way it has to be. Copyright works against individuals in almost all cases, we benefit much more from free interchange of ideas. Social diffusion and remixing is a fundamental human force and this AI stuff forced the issue by doing the exact same things with impossible precision and scale, such that the absurdity of the system for humans is revealed as well.
The current copyright regime is the social equivalent of “we could have a cop taking down license plates if we wanted”. And AI does the “so it’s therefore legal to automatically and instantly record everyone’s license plates at every intersection in the country 24/7”. The principle is the same but the ease of use reveals the absurdity of the principle.
It would be great if such "creative" works were simply impossible to monetize. I already don't pay for these and try to find unknown artists / writers who have a job and do stuff simply because they enjoy doing it.
If not for the ability to monetize, there would be a small fraction of the total available work out there. From music, to movies, to video games. And for many, the quality we come to enjoy just wouldn’t be possible. Do you think we’d have a Skyrim, or GTA, or equivalent if there weren’t millions to be made to employ thousands of people to make it happen? What about the largest and most influential films and TV shows of the past decade? These things take money to produce. I could see the argument for music, maybe, but even then I don’t think it’d be sustainable. Just because an artist may enjoy working on their art after working 50 hours a week to pay the bills doesn’t mean they should HAVE to if their art is good enough and desired enough to sustain them, thus allowing them to create more and of a higher caliber (in theory).
I don't consume any of those, I'm just saying what would be better for me.
However, abolishing copyright is not the same as making monetization illegal.
My view is that people should be paid for their WORK, and copying something doesn't make the author work more.
This'd mean the funds 'd need to be bootstrapped (crowdfunding?) before the work is done, but then it'd be free to distribute it.
You don't need to monetize via capital though -- you can pay people to do the creating directly. Eg. One of the biggest ways independent artists already get paid is via services like patreon
That’s just survivorship bias (or perhaps, the opposite).
You don’t hear the happily ever after stories because they don’t tend to reach out to the media after a few years and say “Hey! FYI I’m still rich and my life is perfect.”. They’re off enjoying their money somewhere. The scandals seem more common because those are the only situations that really get publicized.
I have the base model $1k M2 air and it functions excellently as a development machine. Both web dev for work (running multiple react clients, node servers, Pg instances, docker containers, etc all at the same time), and for basic game dev for recreation - though admittedly I’m using Godot for that which is among the lighter weight game engines available.
That to say, it’s far more than a glorified Facebook machine and is a truly excellent value. I much prefer it over my work issued intel MacBook Pro.
They are in addition to a simple Docker or Docker compose setup, not an alternative or replacement. If you want to, you can still use the simple Docker setup in a project for yourself even if it has a devcontainer configuration.
I.e., you can point a .devcontainer at a Dockerfile that you've already got working for your environment and specify standard configurations for environment variables, vscode extensions, and other bootstrap configurations so that the startup friction for a new developer working on the code is reduced to the minimum and the manual steps they need to compete to get started are documented and standardised in the devcontainer format, but you don't lose anything by doing so.
The docker setup is just one part of it. There are sometimes extra considerations - let's call them environmental factors - that can begin to increasingly build complexity until it becomes a significant source of problems. You can try to avoid them, ignore them, or make your own solution. But once you face them all, and measure how much productivity and reliability is lost dealing with them, suddenly Devcontainers makes sense.
First environmental category: your dev environment itself.
What platform are you using? What architecture are you using? Do you need a VM? How will you mount filesystems? How will you handle networking - through the VM or on the native host? How will you handle HTTPS proxies - on the docker client, on the docker server, in the VM? Do you need a custom DNS resolver? Do you need additional applications for your platform, like AWS or GCP CLI tools and credentials? Do you need more applications, some of which may have specific version requirements (for example, Homebrew famously does not support old versions of software)?
Second environmental category: CI/CD.
How should I do a build, test, and deploy from my laptop? How should I do a build, test, and deploy from a CI/CD server? How can I make sure I get the same result from either? How can I reduce the number of dependencies in the deployed form, without getting different results at runtime? How can I re-use things from my local machine in the CI/CD so that I don't have to maintain two different ways of doing the same thing?
- In the best case: you have no problems at all, and everything works automatically.
- In the worst case: one of a hundred different things can break your dev environment. You end up spending an inordinate amount of time just "maintaining your dev environment", rather than writing application code. And the more developers there are, the higher the probability of time is spent on "environment work" rather than "making the product".
- Besides all of that dev environment work, you end up replicating your whole process in a completely different CI/CD system, and now you're maintaining two separate yet identical things.
A solution to all of these environmental factors combined is Devcontainers: https://containers.dev/overview Because it's one standard, all sorts of tools can now take advantage of it. This means different devs can use different tools to solve the same problem with the same config file.
The implication of your comment is that poor people should just stay at home and look at pictures on the internet instead of occasionally traveling and experiencing things for themselves.
If this is your perspective, you’re either incredibly privileged, jaded, or both. I don’t think that poor people are necessarily owed cheap accommodation or transportation in any sense, but I also don’t think that active steps should be taken to remove more affordable options simply because they can’t afford to patronize high-end restaurants and stores or do the more expensive tourist activities.
> If this is your perspective, you’re either incredibly privileged, jaded, or both.
My perspective on poor people and travel is that international air-travel is hopelessly underpriced; it isn't reasonable for all 6 billion people in the world to travel for holidays. I don't really care who travels; tourists don't better my bread, whether they're rich or poor. But the argument that tourists are good for the local enconomy depends on them being willing to spend money. Huge columns of overseas students don't spend much money.
My town is pretty, and world-famous. It is quite capable of sustaining itself without tourists; it has two universities, and several large hospitals. Housing is in short supply, and expensive. It's not a great shopping destination; tourists who want to shop shop elsewhere.
> but I also don’t think that active steps should be taken to remove more affordable options
Every housing unit devoted to tourists is a housing unit that isn't available for the local people. The Council is right to try to restrict residential housing to residential use.
