GP wasn't venturing an opinion on immigration/emigration, he was offering a correction[1] to the poster who thought the article was talking about emigration when it was actually talking about the immigrant population only.
Just like how I am not giving an opinion on the immigration/emigration policies, I'm merely offering (what I think is[2]) a correction to your post.
[1] Maybe his "correction" is wrong, but he is still only talking about stats and not policies.
[2] I could be wrong too, about my interpretation about GPs correction, but that still leaves this post void of opinions on immigration/emigration policies.
funny how one "the" flips the meaning of the sentence
I thought I was being paranoid until I started reading the article
I choose to believe this is a freudian slip, which means they're trying to cause tooth decay while pretending to do the opposite.
If I were dentistry as a business, I wouldn't like this permanent (final) solution to tooth decay because of my unreasonably suspicions that the odontological treatment I received as a child was unconsciously intended to make me continue to need 'dental care' instead of fixing anything. Last time I was at a (very expensive private) dental clinic the treatment they pushed on to me was killing my tooth so I would buy one. I'm pretty sure some hugely powerful branch of dentistry is betting on people in my demographic (who get their teeth killed off) buying a full set of teeth from them in the future.
But I would only accept Thompson teeth, the only teeth capable of chewing other teeth
Rise up sheeple, and rinse out your mouth with bleach twice daily to remove any gentech germs! Big Teeth and their engineered bacteria are keeping us down!
Teeth are an abomination and your body works hard to reject them, purifying your mouth and your soul so you can die appropriately shriven of your sin. Big Dentistry is trying to keep you from heaven!
The 100k population German city I live in recently reported they made 2 million Euro in this year so far (using speed cameras alone.) That doesn't seem like nothing.
A lot are actually missed by not getting a good photo and probably other reasons. I've seen the flashing light around 4 to 5 times already, but have only ever gotten 1 ticket (where they changed the speed from 50 to 30 and immediately put up a camera - bastards.)
They probably get great photos but the camera may be set to the actual limit whereas the fine only comes when you exceed that limit by a certain amount.
> i'm pretty sure that's only a legit business model in the usa
lolwut? i haven't gotten a single camera-based ticket, ever - many decades of driving in the US - unlike say Italy where every time i drive (about once in 5 years) i seem to break some stupid minor rule and get a photo ticket
what I actually think is way crazier than that. if you asked me (which you didn't) I'd say that I think that behind the scenes what all these llm and ai companies are doing is licensing chinese tech
i regard the timing for the openai fiasco right after the apec meeting in sf as too good for this all to be true
I mean, that's one way of viewing it, yes, but considering how influential they are in spaces other businesses are struggling in (free software), having a $34B market cap isn't shabby performance. IBM getting an easy-in to free software via a respected (by business, anyway) partner is a big opportunity, but they'd have to play their cards right and I can't think of the last big thing IBM was behind. They might be able to sell Red Hat to everyday people if they pair it with hardware and have reasonable pricing for personal or self-hosting support licenses. I'm not savvy enough on IBM's history to know if their current staff are good picks to develop a more complete product on top of RHEL, but I can see it having value and success if priced well. As I understand it though, both IBM and RH seem more interested in cloud stuff.
You'd have to be blind to consider Red Hat not influential in its sphere.
Yes Red Hat is significant in its niche of enterprise server operating systems, but it's not in the same league as Microsoft as a company overall. Red Hat would typically be deployed on AWS or Azure where they rake in all the money.
While Microsoft makes $73B profit, IBM makes $2B profit.
This is very basic stuff. You are overthinking it.
Microsoft is in the group of "big five" tech companies (Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft). IBM is not in that group.
The reason for that is IBM is significantly smaller in terms of revenue and market cap and so on. IBM exists in a tier below the "big tech" level. This is how company sizes are measured.
Very simple. Not complicated.
Server operating systems are a small fraction of Microsoft's business.
You can make up whatever you want, that doesn't mean it's reality. I guess Zildjian, the cymbal making company is bigger than amazon, apple, microsoft, netflix, facebook and IBM, since it was founded in 1623.
This could be a product of your own PoV & history with IBM. Not many consider IBM's legacy noteworthy, they became complacent and got beat out the market.
for a while I've been counfounded by the connection between "they're really smart, they do great quality work" and the simple fact that maybe, they just spent way more time doing the work
It used to be part of the internet. As in, people publishing stuff there weren't isolated, I could send you a link and you'd "just read it" as it were. This is increasingly untrue. Just like with facebook and the others, I might add.
In the end, I think Jake Applebaum was right: the established social media are the real darknet. Stuff that's posted there eventually gets cut off for fun^Wprofit and dies a silent death...
This is very true. As an exmaple, Ian Hickson's blog post explaining the real reason behind DRM was posted on Google+ and is now completely unavailable (at least I can't find the original text anywhere).
Here is an open web page describing what he wrote (with some quotes), but the original text ? Gone along with G+.
I can get the internet archive to display the original text when I view source. The reply to this comment of mine appears to be the original text (minus some of the formatting and bolding), and doesn't include the comments. I think it's complete, but only grabbed and reformatted a chunk of the view source.
Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. The argument goes as follows:
1. The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from copying content while allowing people to view that content,
2. You can't hide something from someone while showing it to them,
3. And in any case widespread copyright violations (e.g. movies on file sharing sites) often come from sources that aren't encrypted in the first place, e.g. leaks from studios.
It turns out that this argument is fundamentally flawed. Usually the arguments from pro-DRM people are that #2 and #3 are false. But no, those are true. The problem is #1 is false.
The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.
The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.
Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.
Here are some examples:
A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".
Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump straight to the movie.
With DRM, there is no licensed player that can do this, because to create the player you need to get permission from Paramount -- or rather, a licensing agent created and supported by content companies, DVD-CCA -- otherwise, you are violating some set of patents, anti-circumvention laws, or both.
B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia, and sells access to the bits of the movie to users online. You get a Netflix subscription. Columbia want you to pay more if you want to watch it simultaneously on your TV and your phone, so they require that Netflix prevent you from doing this.
Now. You are watching the movie upstairs with your family, and you hear your cat meowing at the door downstairs.
Without DRM, you don't have to use Netflix's software, so maybe just pass the feed to some multiplexing software, which means that you can just pick up your phone, tell it to stream the same movie, continue watching it while you walk downstairs to open the door for the cat, come back upstairs, and turn your phone off, and nobody else has been inconvenienced and you haven't missed anything.
With DRM, you have to use Netflix's software, so you have to play by their rules. There is no licensed software that will let you multiplex the stream. You could watch it on your phone, but then your family misses out. They could keep watching, but then you miss out. Nobody is allowed to write software that does anything Columbia don't want you to do. Columbia want the option to charge you more when you go to let your cat in, even if they don't actually make it possible yet.
C. Fox make a movie. Apple buys the rights to sell it on iTunes. You buy it from iTunes. You want to watch it on your phone. Fox want you to buy the movie again if you use anything not made by Apple.
Without DRM, you just transfer it to your phone and watch it, since the player on any phone, whether made by Apple or anyone else, can read the video file.
With DRM, only Apple can provide a licensed player for the file. If you're using any phone other than an iPhone, you cannot watch it, because nobody else has been allowed to write software that decrypts the media files sold by Apple.
In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from violating a copyright. All three movies are probably available on file sharing sites. The only people who are stopped from doing anything are the player providers -- they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather than being optimised for the users, puts potential future revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the door open to charging more for more features later, building artificial obsolescence into content so that if you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content again).
Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in the music space not because DRM is doomed, but because the content providers sold their digital content without DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they didn't expect (such as "MP3" players). Had CDs been encrypted, iPods would not have been able to read their content, because the content providers would have been able to use their DRM contracts as leverage to prevent it.
DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying that purpose well.
As a corollary to this, look at the companies who are pushing for DRM. Of the ones who would have to implement the DRM, they are all companies over which the content providers already, without DRM, have leverage: the companies that both license content from the content providers and create software or hardware players. Because they license content, the content providers already have leverage against them: they can essentially require them to be pro-DRM if they want the content. The people against the DRM are the users, and the player creators who don't license content. In other words, the people over whom the content producers have no leverage.
In the same way that sugared cereals used to be advertised as "part of this complete breakfast!" showing it next to fruit, eggs, toast, etc. that made a perfectly good breakfast without the cereal.
No the public internet is doing just fine. I can still send packets to where ever. However, the machines connected to it aren't playing nice with each other anymore.
