At first I thought this was silly, then I remembered there is another guy in England that also claims sovereignty of this area. The Prince of Hutt has a better claim as far as I'm concerned.
When it comes to software specifically, there are a couple advantages of capitalist ownership:
1. Access to cash. While software does not require much physical capital (factories, equipment, raw materials, etc) those with capital have easier access to cash and can therefore scale much quicker.
2. Intellectual Property. In software industry, workers do not just use capital to make finished goods. They produce new capital out of their imaginations and that capital (which lasts 120 years, never breaks down, never deteriorates) is typically owned those who put up the cash. That makes their advantage grow over time.
None of that is insurmountable, but we are a long way from having the organization or political support to overcome them.
I'm a little confused. Was this code he released that allowed others to run a mixing service, or was it a mixing service ran by this guy, or is it some kind of distributed mixing service that cannot be controlled by anyone?
I opened the article expecting to agree with headline, but after reading it, I think, based just on the one short example it gives, it is wrong.
The first poem that the author points to as a masterpiece is a tortured exercise in formal meter. I had to read it out loud, very deliberately leaning into the meter to hear any musicality. It is difficult not because the feeling communicated are necessarily hard to communicate, but because the author enjoys the puzzle.
The second piece just flowed effortlessly. The rythym and meaning were immediately grasped, in complete silence, while still rewarding someone who sat with it a little longer.
I guess I had the opposite reaction sort of? I'm not sure I was expecting to disagree with it but I was skeptical that they could make a reasonable argument, and came away thinking that their core argument was fundamentally sound, even if someone might disagree with it in the end.
I'm not sure their examples are really the best but for me you could cut out the examples and I think the argument would still stand. Maybe put differently, I'm not sure anyone would be talking about Bob Dylan's work if it were not for the music; that's a counterfactual that's impossible to determine but I suspect it is true. Given that, you have to ask yourself about the role of the music and whether or not you're comparing apples and oranges at some level when you compare poetry with and without music. There's lots of examples throughout history of written poetry and other works that would probably be forgotten were they not integrated into more famous musical works (Schiller's Ode to Joy is a good example, being part of Beethoven's 9th Symphony).
I can see why someone would disagree though. For me the decision always seemed off, and this rationale put into words for me why. I think there was a pattern around that time with major awards but that pertains to several slightly different issues.
I agree. I'm also not familiar with Bob Dylan in more than an abstract "he's a musician" sort of way. The second flowed effortlessy, conveying tone, intention, and imagery.
> the Department of Homeland Security had suspended the purchase of commercial location data after the Inspector General found the agency had violated federal law, but that temporary safeguard has now been dismantled.
Sounds like it is still illegal. They just don't care.
Notably, this administration illegally fired (ignored a notice-to-congress period, and IIRC also didn't state a cause, both of which are required by the law) all the Inspectors General as one of their first acts.
These were positions set up after the Watergate scandal to make it harder for the executive to engage in blatant criminality for long periods without anyone noticing. One ought to read that as a statement of intent to commit lots of obvious crimes.
Maybe I should follow the example of ICE and assume everything I do is legal until a judge specifically tells me it is not. I know other people have gone to jail for murder, but how do I know the murder I want to commit is illegal until a judge rules on my particular case.
Last time I bought something from amazon I was almost tricked by an interstitial with a prominent "Get Free Shipping" button and a much less prominent, "no, I want to pay more" link.
It shouldn't be too difficult to prove use deceptive practices. Just show the judge a screenshot of that page.
