Exactly right. And even if I hadn't heard the word before, somehow in arabic you can actually intuitively reach the meaning of the word, based on its structure. It's really an amazing language.
I think the author is confused about what inflation is, vs the benefits reaped from the advancement of technology. The author also seems to have a bias against the people screaming "inflation". That is pretty obvious from the title. To show real inflation, I like using the Burger King whopper as an example. In the early 90's I remember being able to buy 4 whoppers for $1. With the advancement of farming technology, transportation technology, preservation technology, etc.... Why do we see the whopper cost over $7 now?
So that's a 4.3x change, not a 28x change as claimed, and represents an "inflation" of about 7.5%/yr over the past two decades (or 5.5%/yr since 1990).
> In the early 90's I remember being able to buy 4 whoppers for $1.
The simple answer is that your memory is wrong, and that at no point in the 1990's were you able to buy 4 Burger King Whoppers for $1. Other than your recollection, do you have any evidence that this price is correct? Or have I missed a layer of hyperbole in your argument?
Thanks so much, you brought up some things I didn't think about. It's kind of a weird situation because the beat that I made has been floating around the internet for about 12 years now and people have used it a lot and it's had 10s of millions of views by now. This overseas manager wants to buy it exclusive. But it has more sentimental value for me and I wouldn't want to tie it to 1 person. I even offered a lease agreement but they want it exclusive. I don't think they can pay what I would want for compete exclusive rights to it. They even sort of "threatened" that they can easily remake it with some changes and get away with it but they would rather "do it the right way".
Is it possible they want to start enforcing copyright against all those users? i.e. They see that you don't care about preventing others from using it and want to purchase the right to collect licensing fees from others. (If that were the case, then their assertion that they can easily remake it would have absolutely nothing to do with their ultimate desire and would just be an evasion to put you off the scent of their true aim.)
Seems to me like they might want to get exclusive rights, then spend the next decade shaking people down that you did not bother.
That activity would have your name attached to it too. Damn tough to avoid no matter what you or they say. That will be due to your non action over the years.
That was not wrong, or bad. It is just what you did. And from what you write, it worked out nice from your point of view. Nothing wrong with any of that either.
Lots of people jammed on your beats and maybe the world is a little more fun or something, right?
But, you will have sold the right to them and all that, and that ton of views could mean a ton of negative feelings headed your way too.
As others have said, get real legal advice. Now. Please.
Them wanting exclusivity and you have to believe they know those beats are all over the place, totally begs the question, "why?"
Say they follow through on the threat?
They remake it, somehow and then what?
Seems to me, using your beats or theirs all leads to the same place and that is whatever they want to associate with something they own has to exist out there with all the other efforts and that I bet just won't work for them.
Someone, somewhere is going to just start cracking down and the real question seems to be, "what will you do?"
If you opened it, doing something fairly solid that allows what is happening today to continue, that's a potential pain in the ass. Worth paying you type pain in the ass.
If you do nothing, they will include you in whatever it is.
If you sell to them, you get paid, and they crackdown and could mention you a lot to deflect from them.
Maybe you make something new, and tons of people know you created the existing stuff?
If, if, if...
Get some real advice and figure out what is worth what.
Will they give you enough money to not give a fuck, for example? You said it might be a lot. Too much? My gut says probably.
Or, maybe you just learned your beats have more value than you realize.
Maybe in tandem with opening it up, you tell the tale and get some money and or somehow make it far less worth it for others to try and take up the space your beats now occupy? Maybe make it clear all uses are OK, but can you get some help with legal...
My major question is, "Do what the right way?"
If it were me, I would try hard to find out before doing anything, and find out how urgent it all is and what the impact is to all those people out there using your beats, and how you really feel about all that.
And however you feel is what you feel. What you value is the same way.
I don't understand how land masses the size of africa detaches. The map shows africa attached to the US, but this doesn't make sense. I can understand water levels changing, exposing new areas that might have been underwater, drying up and turning into land masses, as well as areas that were previously land, becoming filled with water.
Consider this model: the Earth is like a puzzle. Its crust is made up of a bunch of pieces that all fit together. But those pieces aren’t unchanging. They all sit on top of a huge soft sludgey core called the mantle. And they want to slowly (slooooooowly) slide around.
At each boundary between pieces one of three things can happen:
- they slide against each other
- they diverge from each other
- they press into each other, often one going under the other, sometimes one pushing the other.
A continent can move, oh so slowly, over millions of years through a combination of shifting along with other plates, or having one side of its plate grow (move away and have the new gap filled with the molten plasticy goo underneath), while the other side pushes away a plate or disappears underneath the other plate.
The map I linked shows a massive stretch mark of the Earth in the Atlantic Ocean. This is one striking piece of evidence that the above effects have been happening over a long long time. It’s basically the boundary between a few plates. And it shows all this brand new ocean floor that came flowing up from under the crust (then cooled and got hard) when a gap was created because they separated apart.
Another thing to keep in mind: these tectonic plates are heavy. Like unimaginably heavy. They can be thousands of miles wide and tens of miles thick and are as dense as rock. They exert huge pressure on that soft sludgey core, which is incidentally being heated by a low-level nuclear furnace in the center of the Earth. So the plates are more like a lid on a boiling pot that is foaming over. They're all getting jostled by insanely powerful pressure from underneath. Every once in a while a pimple appears and goes kaboom.
Looking at New Zealand 35 million and 20 million years ago on that globe (search for one of our cities like Auckland or Christchurch) is really illuminating when compared to its current shape, most of the South Island is to the west of the North Island, as the plate boundary between the Indian and Pacific plate runs through the South Island, and the eastern side has been moving south-west for millennia to form the current shape of the land, and our Southern Alps.
There's a BBC documentary on this that's now around 25 years old, called Earth Story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Story). It describes not only what we know, but how we know it. As documentaries go, it's rather in-depth but easily digestible.
Thanks for the suggestion, it sounds really interesting based on some YouTube comments. Just ordered it used from the UK, first time I'll be watching an actual DVD since... years. I think I do have a DVD drive somewhere in storage.
All continents rest on tectonic plates, which kind of rest on the liquid core and are moving around on it. Let enough time pass, and the plates will move around, and the continents with them.
Now how that large land mass came to be is an interesting question to me. The globe shown here in the title/link is clearly not homogeneous. The land mass on one side must be less dense than the rest of the earth for it to protrude above sea level that way.
The continents are indeed less dense than the oceans!
On average, the continental crust has a composition that is also seen in magmas that are produced at subduction zones (where denser oceanic crust is forced under continental crust) by the melting of the mantle. At the mid-ocean ridges, water is circulated through the newly produced oceanic crust, and the fresh basalt is metamorphosed, causing new minerals to grow which contain water as a part of their structure. Up to a few hundred million years later, this oceanic crust reaches a subduction zone, where it is pulled into the mantle. As it sinks, it is exposed to higher pressures and the water-bearing minerals become unstable. The water within them is driven off the crust and rises into the overlying mantle. At these pressures and temperatures, water is to rock what salt is to ice, and part of the mantle melts - think of it as a kind of 'slush'. As the magma (the liquid part of this slush) rises to the surface, it begins to crystallise, and the denser crystals (which form first) sink. Overall, this makes the magma less dense, continuing to drive it to the surface, where it may either eventually stall in the crust (in a pluton) or be erupted in a volcano. Now there is less dense material sitting on top of and within the oceanic crust and an island arc is born - an example today is the Aleutian Islands.
The magmas formed at subduction zones have a distinctive geochemical signature called the 'calc-alkaline' trend. Whereas magmas at mid-ocean ridges become enriched in iron because of the crystallisation of plagioclase feldspar, at subduction zones the presence of water suppresses feldspar crystallisation, instead producing 'wet' minerals like amphibole. As a result, these magmas do not become enriched in iron as they rise through the crust, and instead become rich in sodium and potassium. These magmas also have distinctive radiogenic isotope ratios and trace element contents. The continental crust (while highly compositionally varied) on average has similar signatures, suggesting that it was formed by this kind of activity.
The fun happens when two of these island arcs collide. They are both less dense than the underlying mantle, so neither will subduct easily. Instead, they coalesce into a single mass, and a continent is born. More common today is the collision of an island arc with a pre-existing continent. This happened before India collided with Asia to form the Himalayas, and the calc-alkaline plutonic rocks are visible at the surface in Tibet today. This is how the continents grow.
The continents are thought to have started to form during the Archaen Eon, starting at four billion years ago. The rate at which they formed is still very much up for debate, but it is thought that crustal growth was more rapid back then as compared to today, and was mostly complete by around 2.5 billion years ago. Today's tectonic plates are cored by ancient cratons, the oldest and most tectonically stable pieces of crust. Around these cratons are progressively younger strips of crust stuck on by colliding island arcs. Much of North America is made up of island arcs stuck to the Laurentian craton.
For the longest time (more than a decade) I ran a small company (< 50 employees) that fielded a video chat service. The whole thing revolved around a minor bug that just happened to be present in all major browsers.
All that time I thought: next week someone else is going to clue in to this, it is so obvious. But nobody ever did.
Isn't this more to do with how TCP and the socket interface is implemented (or more accurately its intended semantics) than a bug in browsers? Not draining any inbound data on a new connection prior to sending my request doesn't sound like a bug.
Yes, that's the practical reason. But a browser could of course have implemented HTTP in the way described in the RFC, instead they all took the easy and obvious way out. That's also why the bug was present in all browsers that had marketshare, it was the obvious thing to do, it is not as if they independently made the same mistake, they independently decided that it wasn't important enough to implement the protocol to the letter.
Not sure why everyone is so surprised. This goes hand in hand with apples goals in creating a seamless ecosystem for the customer. It's part of their brand, mission and identity to have this tight/strict policy. It would actually hurt their brand if they derailed from this.
Apple is an end to end ecosystem. It has a straight line vision. I think they would be wrong to not do this.
And this is coming from a privacy / open source geek. I run my own mail servers.
> Why not change it to something that does not refer to one of the most barbaric, nightmarish relationships between people?
Gee, maybe because it also has connotations that have nothing to do with racism or human slavery?
Where does this slippery slope end?
Should we change other terms in computer technology simply because some vastly small minority emotionally fragile busybodies break down at the mere sight of the word "abort" or "kill" or "terminate"?
Master/slave have very well defined meanings in computer terminology ~ and spoiler alert, there are no human or racial connotations in those meanings anywhere.
I think I see where you are coming from. I'm not advocating for changing "abort" or "kill" and agree they go too far.
I disagree with your point that it has nothing to do with racism or human slavery. The name master/slave indicates one is giving direction and one is following direction. It's not like someone sat there thought the letters m.a.s.t.e.r sounded good and might at well be the name of bit of the system giving order.
My concern is not with industry veterans, but with people being introduced to tech or non-techincal people who are brought into technical discussions.
Honestly, would your rather explain a bug as "the secondary was not following the instructions from the primary" or "the slave was not following the instructions of the master" to a room full of people unfamiliar with the subject?
The master/slave naming scheme is, to me, an especially bad situation. Things like whitelist/blacklist do not have the same urgency in my mind.
I appreciate your concern for the slippery slope but think we can address this without falling all the way to the bottom.
I dont know how I'd post evidence. I can explain how to recreate. I had a kindle device for a long time. I recently reset my device to factory. Then reattached the kindle to my account by booting up the kindle device and logging in with my Amazon credentials. Next, I went to my settings page to see what my "Send to Kindle" email address was and it was my "<AmazonPassword>@kindle.com" without the numbers and special characters.
Then do that, because it might be a bug or even intended, but there's no proof in this post, there's not even context from which we ourselves could investigate. If that's actually happening and you didn't accidentally type your password in the wrong box, then it'll be a big deal, but for now this is useless, sorry friend.
I just put the context in the reply above. I'm a (systemNetwork/admin/engineer) by trade and hobby, I'm not perfect, and I definitely make mistakes but I guarantee you I didn't put anything in the "wrong box". It was pretty straight forward.
Step 1. Turn on new Kindle device.
Step 2. Log into Kindle Device with Amazon account.
Step 3. Go to settings, the "your Account"
Step 4. Look at the last line and it shows your passwword(partially) in plain text.
