Unfortunately the US government already took note ages ago. Cross-Industry and general strikes are illegal in the USA.. This kinda thing can't happen here.
I wish it was just the US copyright system that's the problem, some nations have worse copyright laws. In France for example architecture can have copyright, and renovations have a separate copyright from the original architecture.. The lights on the Eiffel Tower have a separate copyright from the Eiffel Tower itself, which is currently in the public domain. So while it's completely fine to take a photo of the Tower during the day at night you need to have permission from the copyright holder, and they have taken action against people who have taken photos of the Tower at night.
Then there are some nations where there isn't even a public domain and stuff never loses their copyright.
Many of these worse laws have been driven by US and EU trade policies and Trade Agreements mandating draconian copyright and intellectual property laws.
Copyright laws are just a nightmare writ large.
Given that this is kingdom hearts and multiple worlds exist in that franchise and its possible to travel between them it's possible to have 'travel the world without leaving your home" and still make it so that the full game is only playable with GPS location. All they'd have to do is tie physical locations to worlds in game but then make those worlds navigable without requiring the user to move.
It says in the article why
The new game is a GPS based Action RPG with a new story that builds on the Kingdom Hearts storyline.. While the new game isn’t an AR title, it does use a player’s real-life location to figure out their location in the game’s map.
why the hell can't I watch with subtitles in the same language as the film itself? Holy fuck.
Probably because the subtitles have their own copyright separate from the film itself and Amazon likely doesn't have the license to the English subtitles outside of the USA. It wouldn't surprise me, music lyrics have their own separate copyright from the recording after all.
The copyright system is the biggest problem here. It simply isn't fit for purpose in the digital age, unless that purpose was to benefit a handful of legacy mega corps while harming independent content creators and stifling culture across the globe.
I doubt he'd ever do anything really bad, but I know if they did break up my sister would hold a grudge(she's a great person but takes breakups pretty hard.), and it would certainly make things extremely awkward between us, at least for awhile.
I'm just glad that so far there's no indication that they will get to that point. They are pretty good at communicating with each other and they already have a system in place that keeps finances from being a point of contention between them, so the most common causes of a divorce shouldn't be an issue short of something drastic happening, like my sister or him developing a disability that keeps either of them from being able to work.
It's just concerning for me because my entire social circle was basically formed thanks to their relationship. Every other friend that I am not quite as close to I met through them and they are closer to him and they are with me, and I know at least a few would sever connections the minute they got divorced as a show of support for him, even if he asked them not to, which knowing him he absolutely wouldn't want them to.
Man this thread just makes me realize how lucky I am that I have a sister who I am close with, and who married a man who shares a ton of my interests and hobbies.. I've got two lifelong friends so long as they don't end up divorced.
Ok sure, remove the film grain... then add in your eye's natural blind spots, automatic content fill, and varying resolution.
Aka: the eyes you are using to play the game + Frame Generation + Dynamic Resolution.
Personalities of models. Lol, that is some niche market my dude. Never watched a porn a said to myself "wow, I really like her personality". It's just smut to beat my meat to, nothing more, nothing less.
That's the thing though paid porn is niche to begin with, and for people that pay for it there are three groups. Group 1 that cares about production quality, group 2 that has some hyper-niche fetish, and group 3 that wants more than just something to best their meat to, they are looking for a sexual parasocial relationship.
Your future of ai porn of anything and everyone could only address group 2. Group 1 will take quite some time before they are satisfied with generated porn (it would need to be indistinguishable from real 4k porn with high production values.) and group 3 would require the computational power to render it in real time with both a believable personality and high quality graphics.
I like Snowden as much as any terminally online person does, but I don't think his quote is really the best as it supposes there are people with nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide, if for no other reason than out of embarrassment.
There's a reason why we close the bathroom door despite the fact that everyone knows we are taking a shit.
I was a young child during the napster days, and by the time my parents had anything better than dial-up iTunes had already taken off.
Maybe I'm less into music than most people, maybe most are music enthusiasts who actually take full advantage of all the music, all the time, for a low monthly rate thing but i mostly listen to the same small handful of artists with only the occasional breakout towards newer things. If Spotify and YouTube Music were both to die all I'd have to do is spend a larger amount upfront but then I'd be back to pretty much the status quo, and without the monthly bill. So for me any sort of significant changes in price or quality of service completely negate the sole reason I bother with music streaming and that is convenience and cost.
I'm not encouraging violent rebellion,
Ok good.
I'm simply saying the powerful have historically only ever been checked by property damage, terror, and blood, or at least fear thereof.
Nevermind. You just did an immediate 180.
I mean, this is a nice sentiment in the abstract, but in actuality, we kind of are if we want the product to continue to exist
Except what made the product attractive to the consumer are the very things making it unprofitable. Minimal ads, unlimited streaming of any and all music you want. Without that might as well stick to terrestrial radio, at least that doesn't use up your mobile data.
What I genuinely don't understand is how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn't exist if it's not economically viable, and at the same time, you'll also criticize them for any attempt to make it economically viable. If Spotify shouldn't offer the free tier because it's not viable, and you'll also attack them if they stopped offering it, what do you actually want them to do?
The point you dismissed as a "nice sentiment in abstract" applies here: it's completely irrelevant to the consumer. If Spotify dies we will just go to Apple/Amazon/Youtube Music, and if they all die that's then iTunes and MP3s get to make a comeback.
Spotify's profitability is Spotify's problem,, no-one else's.
The luddites failed and the French revolutions ended poorly for everyone. Not exactly the best examples to draw from if you are trying to encourage violent rebellion.
Well if we can't tax 'em we could always literally eat them, and if we can't afford food thanks to them killing the good paying jobs then maybe we will just have to eat them literally if we can't tax them properly.
We do actually. Just last year new york passed the Concealed Carry Improvement act imposing a background check on ammunition purchases. This bill is completely redundant and unnecessary.
Except for the fact that they aren't replacing keywords on the user end, simply matching advertiser keywords to a broader range of keywords specifically for the ad results.
Claiming they are replacing user keywords for higher value ones is absolutely incorrect, which is what the article they got that info from specifically claimed before it was retracted.
They aren't taking watch searches and showing only luxury brand results, they are taking luxury watch searches and showing generic ads for "watches" alongside the relevant search results through the normal Algorithm which ties to find what it thinks is most relevant to those keywords.
That latter one is something all search engines do and without doing so they wouldn't be very useful to the average person who doesn't know about search operators and advanced search refining tools.. Simple keyword matching is too easily tricked by the SEO industry.
but google is editing your queries without your knowledge, so they can milk more money out of their advertisers.
That came from a wired article which was quietly retracted because the author had misunderstood a slide from the Google anti trust trial and had the meaning nearly backwards.
What Google is actually doing is allowing advertisers to match keywords to common synonyms and other relevant keywords. If you search for (insert brandname) infant sleepwear for example Google will also show ads from adverts from companies who selected the keywords "baby pajamas". And that specific keyword replacement was only relevant to advertising"..
Google has long been transparent about the fact they interpret the meaning of keywords for searches to try to improve their relevance, and if you think about it if Google was replacing low value keywords with higher value ones it would be obvious, as generic searches would only turn up stuff from luxury brands and ads wouldn't have broad keyword matching.
There are plenty of things to blame Google for, the low return on advertising that publishers get and the increasing need for the entire Internet to be locked behind millions of different paywalls, SEO optimization, click bait bullshit, link farms, but one of them isn't replacing keywords to maximize value.
Permanently Deleted