@silverwizard I'm not impressed by the dramatic depiction. I want efficiency. Ratcheting progress. Reducing inequalities. Not exciting tales of conniving hustlers!
@silverwizard Thanks, and I see what you mean, but I'm not sure it applies here, not when copper quality is on the line! Are you blaming Nanni for taking a too good to be true deal?
@Ted At my job where I don’t make any technical decision. We were forced to move from a cozy self-hosted architecture to a shiny AWS mesh I have a barely workable understanding of and rarely access to these days because of Linux platform incompatibility in a Docker context (words uttered by the deranged).
@Ted What surveillance do you think AWS does? I’ve come to separate them from Amazon itself that I won’t touch with a ten foot pole. They are in very different kind of businesses.
@Jonathan Lamothe I mean, I could follow the feed on Friendica and collapse anything not about the target product, but it's a line between professional and personal that I'm not comfortable crossing just yet.
@Ted What did you think you would achieve with your reply? Speaking of respect, a simple question about why I have to use AWS would have gone a long way. Going further, I've never had terribly negative interactions with AWS, either their products or their employees, so your banter rings hollow to me.
"if I find a way to obtain your patron-only audio without paying, that is also piracy. that affects your revenue."
It only affects your potential revenue, which can be anything since it isn't real. Piracy views/plays don't and will never produce an equal amount of paid views/plays even if the means of piracy disappear. This is enough ground for me to question the very use of the "piracy" term.
I expect this view to be expressed by distributors whose only job is to extract the maximum amount of money from the intellectual property they manage, but I didn't expect this from any given individual I'd rather subtoot because I don't think we can reconcile our viewpoints.
@Shiri Bailem My problem with LLMs' inaccuracies is that they are made at a frightening scale that few single humans have ever been able to reach. It's like someone learned about Brandolini's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law and thought the problem was that it was still possible to refute bullshit.
I don’t know who needs to hear this, but billionaires’ wealth isn’t estimated in actual money, but in potential money. It’s actually worse, as people will give them the benefit of the doubt as if their fortune was real.
Of course there are ways for them to convert their potential money into actual currency, but it is rarely a 1:1 exchange, so billionaires’ power partly comes from the illusion of potential money on top of their actual spending.