Interesting project Sam. Thanks for sharing.
Can you share how your catalogue management works and w/ cover images?
Are you ingesting ONIX from publishers? Or is catalog creation downstream of the bookstore owner ordering the book?
1. automated file upload via FTP (this is what most POS providers can do)
2. manual inventory file upload (requires the same file format as FTP sync, but as a simple file upload in the admin UI)
3. manual user entry via a web form (this is what i do for my own inventory since i don't have a POS)
each way will search for the title's bib data and use that to create the foundation of the product. does not work for books without an isbn, unfortunately.
the bibliographic data is evolving and something i like to nerd about. right now, i'm only using isbndb's database. it gets the job done for what i need right now but it's not perfect. when a book product is created, i take the isbn and fetch the bib data for that `Edition`. this data includes author, title, description, publisher, cover image, etc. a bookseller can edit the `Edition` by add/removing whatever they want. they can add additional information to the `Copy`, like the book condition, jacket condition, signed, first edition, etc. they can also add custom photos to the `Copy`, which is useful for collectibles.
if isbndb data isn't available for a title, then the web form has a way to search the open library database to auto-populate the bibliographic data as best it can. this is not that great tbh and something i might remove. one day, in the further future, i would love to create my own bibliographic database and share it with open library.
i've prototyped a data pipeline that will be able to take onix feeds from ingram and any publisher. ingram's data is the best, but their subscription is expensive, so i'm waiting for a paying customer who requires the best data. it also requires a lot of storage space and compute for the data pipeline. that data source will be a premium feature.
As mentioned in the article, Salt Typhoon and the recency of this request by the UK. At this point they should know better.
My pet theory is anytime the US wants to do something illegal under US law, they simply ask the UK to do it and vice versa. That's why Salt Typhoon isn't and never will be a lesson learned.
It's not a pet theory, it's exactly how the Five-Eyes system is meant to work. I remember when Total Information Awareness was announced and they even had a cool badge designed for the new govt department. It wasn't a popular idea.
It is a pet theory. It is illegal for the US to access its citizens' and residents' data without a warrant, and asking somebody else to do it doesn't magically make it legal.
It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes. We're not saying it respects the constitution or its intent. We're saying it's what happens.
Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.
> It's not a pet theory when there's proof they have engaged in it through five eyes
What proof? You would think after all the leaks there have been, some proof would exist. Instead, you cling to a conspiracy theory based on a misunderstanding of an agreement.
The fact that you immediately went for "conspiracy theory" discredits you more than you think it discredits me.
They're all conspiracy theorists when the government is accused of wrongdoing and the "proof" demands and moving goalposts happen all the time. Helped by the lack of transparency and all encompassing powers of agencies and governments.
Your arguments boil down to repeating narratives and things like "X is illegal so it doesn't happen" which just shows how naivety is part of your bad argument repertoire. I'm sure black CIA sites and coup d'etats didn't happen if I can't prove them to your liking... And if I somehow satisfied you, there's some justification that make them lawful and correct.
The fact that you fixated on "conspiracy theory" means you don't know what the term means. It means that a large group of people must be working together to make something happen, yet none of them have said anything.
If the Five Eyes participants worked as you have stated instead of as the leaked agreement documents say they work, you would expect Snowden to leak that first because it is obviously illegal. He did not. Why not reduce the number of people required to keep quiet in the conspiracy by having the US spy directly on its citizens? Every question you might ask about your conspiracy theory makes it sound even more ridiculous if you bother to ask it.
Australia does a great job of enacting wacky authoritarian policies in the last 5 years; It would make sense to use them as a staging ground. Does any specific legislation come to mind?
This week we've had the federal laws strengthend to a one year minimum jail time for nazi salutes. I think saying "punch a nazi" unironically could now also get you a year in jail, but I'm not sure about that one.
I'm not deflecting I think we just have different points of view.
> The point ... is to defeat them while you can.
That can be your point, and with that framing almost anything is permissible!
My point is generally to let free, open democracy run its course without putting our fingers on the scale too much.
I'm not scared of people doing a salute in the style of a movement that's been dead for almost a century. I'm not scared of communists flags or chants, or people chanting from the river to the sea. I think it's all healthy as long as it's non violent. The argument that it leads to violence is not logically sound and very minority reportesque.
> The argument that it leads to violence is not logically sound and very minority reportesque.
That a nazi salute, corroborated with converging political views…? You obviously don’t understand, don’t see how things happen.
Or you do, and you know downplaying “nazi wannabees” is part of the game.
It’s not about being scared but principled: an open democracy does not tolerate ideas going against its very foundations: it makes sure these are, expressed maybe, but kept in a very strict perimeter which they ought no get out from.
We don't ban Maoists or Stalinists or Mussolini style facists. We don't ban Napoleonics or Confederates.
After WW2 there was a period of strong Jewish support for nazi rights. Were they not an open democracy? Is the risk in 2025 stronger than what they faced?
I don't know really, is it that every era needs a boogeyman or is it just that we are on a grand cycle away from liberality? Both maybe?
We don't? Maybe you don't. From where I am (France), maoists, stalinists, mussolinists, napoleonics or confederates are pretty badly considered, maybe only considered weird and silly as long as they are just spouting vague theory stuff or giving some substance to the conversation.
But as soon as they associate their "thing" to a violent/segregationist personality/behaviour, you can be certain that they are banned, and in no gentle manners.
Wow, I don't know either. Saying nazis could be sort of boogeyman or victims?... that tolerating nazis would be liberal? Wow. Sounds like a line from "OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies".
You seem not to understand how a society works or what liberal even means... A liberal cannot tolerate ideas that are explicitly against tolerance, as those lead to illiberal behaviours. The best illustration of it is the actual suppression of speech that is happening in the USA, by the very people that reclaimed freedom of speech.
Or again, you do know.
Either way, you're certainly not in the middle, you're actually supporting the violent ones to be violent, asking the ones reacting to that violence to accept it as it is. Not too good looking.
I started reading and it talks about something where a warrant and a case are required to request interception on each case. Is that whacky? You don't think it helps you know fight crime and stuff? Or you have an actual specific example?
He waited a year after receiving the intel? He is being roasted for foriegn interference at the moment? He is about to call an election? Salt Typhoon just broke? And Trump is about to light things up on the Foriegn Affairs file?
I remember when Trump had Canada re-ratify Nafta that Canada had to waive the right to require Canadian data stay in Canada.
I know Canada signed the agreement but I am not sure if that requirement was ever put in legislation or whether the requirement was universal or just for US-based companies.
The Bank of England employees he terrorized would like a word.
Carney has Julie-Payette issues in his past and probably won't leave his board seats to clean up Justin's mess, but never underestimate the ego I guess.
Oh really? Ha! Well, I'm out of the loop on that. I still hold a glowing image of him from when he was working in Canada. I guess I should check what he's been up to... terrorized employees seems surprising, but also... not really.
Were they being engineer-minded or where they being lobbied?
I would like to think they were betting on Beta -- the superior technology -- in the Beta v VHS battle of our time.
What am I missing here? Toyota's engineers have a great track record and the company isn't easily swayed by fads or Wall Street.
It is also possible that Toyota's engineers are not the level they used to be, much like Fujitsu's engineers (who caused one of the largest banking outages ever) or (other company of your choice that used to be a great engineering company but was hollowed out).
Considering the work load at Toyota (it is often referred to as a "black company" by people I know), the level of pressure that is put on their shita-uke companies, and changes in what people consider acceptable work environments, I imagine that they might not attract the same level of talent in 2023 that they did in 1983.
I would assume they were maintaining a visible (and subsidized) presence in a non-fossil technology, while ensuring their profitable ICE business faced no immediate threat.
To take you literally for a moment: if anyone can claim land across a border, based on a historical grievance, then no border would stand. 70 years without a border war in Europe, so yeah we should try to push that water back up the hill. Otherwise a recursive "I would like my land back please."
That's not a category error, its a trivial characterization based upon the marketing term used to advertise the kind of service and is not a legal argument in the slightest.
You still have a different type of category error: The creator, AI in this case, lacks legal personhood, hence cannot be considered the legal author nor hold copyright.
> Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing
What do you recommend?
The artificial scarcity model they have now is broken.
Pay-per-use seems better if the cost per read is adequate enough.
All-you-can-eat-at-fixed-price (Oyster and Scribd) have the economics upside down.
I really liked the windowing approach that Macmillon wanted to try, which would funnel demand to purchases for new releases. Libraries already pay quite a lot for licenses, but I think there needs to be more scarcity too. The trouble is substitution ... customers just build a queue of free borrow options and read whichever comes available. Maybe tighter limits on the library side, instead of 25 concurrent borrows per library card make it 1. Or some way to introduce friction because instant wireless delivery is just so excellent.
Don't have a good answer, I'm an engineer not an economist :)
