If you discover a stream you enjoy and see the sub button, you know that they hit those metrics, so you can expect them to be online often and maintain a stream worth your $5.
I'm not involved with Twitch at all so this is an outsider's perspective.
It also comes after years of Twitch guarding its affiliate status behind merit-based metrics, which led to a ton of work being done by Twitch streamers to get that status.
I thought affiliate status was a way for streamers to make some money. If so, then who cares if there's now another way for streamers to make money? If it's more a "you're cool" badge... then also who cares? I mean I understand people with the badge will care, but I don't see why anyone else should be concerned about them throwing a fit over it.
Affiliate and partner status don’t mean anything. They’re just means of incentivizing streamers to do what Twitch wants.
Is it just me, or does it seem naive to ever think it was anything else?
somehow only the presidential part of the election is to be considered fraudulent despite both presidential and senate/house options being on the same ballot.
The best explanation for that I've heard is "that would have been too obvious". It's not a good explanation, because pretty much everyone, including Republicans, expected the Democrats to increase their House lead and possibly flip the Senate, so that would not have obviously looked like a fraudulent result. But it's the only one they have.
So, tell me again, how the RIAA or its component companies would even have standing, were this brought to court?
Because of section 1203:
"Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation."
Not that it really undermines your point, but the infrastructure gas stations tie into to get their fuel is roads. The fuel is delivered by truck, not pipeline.
And yes, we need public infrastructure with ISPs competing at the service level.
Just like Facebook and Twitter picking and choosing who is allowed to post opinions on their own platforms and nowhere else is protected by the first amendment right to freedom of expression and private property rights.
Whether someone else with different tools and experience than you might hypothetically be able to solve the problem in a better way if they ever get off their thumbs is not a productive question.
Are you saying "all we know how to do is write software, so we will attempt to solve every problem by writing software whether that will work or not" is an appropriate approach? Or have I misunderstood?
until he's 'escorted' out of the WH for good by security(because I doubt his ego will allow him to leave voluntarily and admit defeat)
I think he will leave, probably in the middle of the night. He knows that would be less humiliating than being escorted out at noon on inauguration day with everyone watching.
'only' have to worry about his deranged and psychotic cultists both in office and out.
So yes this case is exactly aligned to your "progress of science and useful arts" quote.
I disagree. There's no indication that the artist would have been fine with usage if only it had been paid for, which I think is how you're arguing that progress is secured - by enriching artists (so they can produce more art?). The point is to ensure 1) creation of the materials and 2) that they benefit the public. 1 is accomplished by incentivizing authors to create works by giving them a temporary monopoly on them, which they can use to make money. 2 is accomplished by ensuring those works pass into the public domain. Neither of those aims have anything to do with making sure the author is not associated with anything they disagree with.
Now in Europe they see things differently, and moral rights are if I understand correctly core to copyright protection. But this is a US case. Also, I'm speaking theoretically as the stated constitutional purpose of copyright is increasingly divorced from its actual implementation.
Re: Re: Obviously the author and many commenters hate Trump.
If neither candidate wins 270 electoral votes, then the election gets decided by the House of Representatives, which has a Democrat majority.
Yes, but in that case each state gets one vote, not each representative. I wouldn't venture to guess how such a vote would go since that hasn't happened in almost 200 years, but Trump could very well win it.
It is universally accepted that the point of copyright is for the owner to have control of how it is used.
In the US, the point of copyright is supposed to be to promote the progress of "science and useful arts" (knowledge, culture). Giving control to the author is the means, not the end.
Neither the democrats nor the republicans should have the power to pass whatever laws they want without tempering them enough to gain the support of both sides.
That doesn't work very well when one side is out to prove that government does not and cannot work.
He's saying only 0.06% of total votes needed to be swayed, if they are carefully chosen in the proper places. I think the margin of error comment is just pointing out that this is a very very small chunk of the electorate that needs to be influenced, not some tremendous feat impacting the entire population of the US. Whether it is actually within any particular measurement's margin of error is beside the point (if I have understood correctly - the comment was not mine).
On the post: Twitch's No Good, Very Bad Time Continues: Part 2
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great explanation, thanks.
On the post: Twitch's No Good, Very Bad Time Continues: Part 2
I'm not involved with Twitch at all so this is an outsider's perspective.
I thought affiliate status was a way for streamers to make some money. If so, then who cares if there's now another way for streamers to make money? If it's more a "you're cool" badge... then also who cares? I mean I understand people with the badge will care, but I don't see why anyone else should be concerned about them throwing a fit over it.
Is it just me, or does it seem naive to ever think it was anything else?
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re: Re:
Argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
On the post: Day After Senator Lindsey Graham Is Credibly Accused Of Trying To Undermine The Election, He Hosts Hearing Attacking Social Media For Undermining Election
Re: 'If we cheated why are you still here?'
The best explanation for that I've heard is "that would have been too obvious". It's not a good explanation, because pretty much everyone, including Republicans, expected the Democrats to increase their House lead and possibly flip the Senate, so that would not have obviously looked like a fraudulent result. But it's the only one they have.
On the post: Federal Court Says State Regulation That Compels Production Of Code May Violate The First Amendment
Re: Fifth amendment protections
Correct. I thought it was across the board, but it's state by state at this point.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/publications/litigation_journal/2018-19/summer/ marital-privileges/
On the post: GitHub, EFF Push Back Against RIAA, Reinstate Youtube-dl Repository
Re:
Because of section 1203:
"Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation."
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html
On the post: Federal Court Says State Regulation That Compels Production Of Code May Violate The First Amendment
Re: Re:
Congress does not have the authority to exempt themselves from constitutional provisions.
On the post: Bullshit Broadband Usage Caps Are Hugely Profitable During A Pandemic
Re:
Not that it really undermines your point, but the infrastructure gas stations tie into to get their fuel is roads. The fuel is delivered by truck, not pipeline.
And yes, we need public infrastructure with ISPs competing at the service level.
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re:
"Nuh-uh!" said the Trump supporter.
On the post: Upload Filters And The Internet Architecture: What's There To Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not my fault words have meanings. If you want to be understood, use the words that mean the things that you want others to understand.
On the post: Upload Filters And The Internet Architecture: What's There To Like?
Re: Re:
Yes, and you said that those two platforms are "picking and choosing who is allowed to post opinions online."
While posting your opinion online without the approval of either of those two platforms.
On the post: Upload Filters And The Internet Architecture: What's There To Like?
Re: Content moderation? Say it ain't so...
Just like Facebook and Twitter picking and choosing who is allowed to post opinions on their own platforms and nowhere else is protected by the first amendment right to freedom of expression and private property rights.
FTFY
On the post: Upload Filters And The Internet Architecture: What's There To Like?
Re:
Are you saying "all we know how to do is write software, so we will attempt to solve every problem by writing software whether that will work or not" is an appropriate approach? Or have I misunderstood?
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re: Re:
I think he will leave, probably in the middle of the night. He knows that would be less humiliating than being escorted out at noon on inauguration day with everyone watching.
And his 2024 presidential run.
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
I disagree. There's no indication that the artist would have been fine with usage if only it had been paid for, which I think is how you're arguing that progress is secured - by enriching artists (so they can produce more art?). The point is to ensure 1) creation of the materials and 2) that they benefit the public. 1 is accomplished by incentivizing authors to create works by giving them a temporary monopoly on them, which they can use to make money. 2 is accomplished by ensuring those works pass into the public domain. Neither of those aims have anything to do with making sure the author is not associated with anything they disagree with.
Now in Europe they see things differently, and moral rights are if I understand correctly core to copyright protection. But this is a US case. Also, I'm speaking theoretically as the stated constitutional purpose of copyright is increasingly divorced from its actual implementation.
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re: Obviously the author and many commenters hate Trump.
Yes, but in that case each state gets one vote, not each representative. I wouldn't venture to guess how such a vote would go since that hasn't happened in almost 200 years, but Trump could very well win it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
On the post: Donald Trump Argues That Use Of 'Electric Avenue' In Campaign Video Was Transformative
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, not really
In the US, the point of copyright is supposed to be to promote the progress of "science and useful arts" (knowledge, culture). Giving control to the author is the means, not the end.
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re:
That doesn't work very well when one side is out to prove that government does not and cannot work.
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Laughed Out Of Court For Claiming A Bunch Of Unvetted Webform Submissions Is 'Evidence' Of Voter Fraud
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's saying only 0.06% of total votes needed to be swayed, if they are carefully chosen in the proper places. I think the margin of error comment is just pointing out that this is a very very small chunk of the electorate that needs to be influenced, not some tremendous feat impacting the entire population of the US. Whether it is actually within any particular measurement's margin of error is beside the point (if I have understood correctly - the comment was not mine).
On the post: Mississippi City Trying To Turn Residents' Doorbell Cameras Into Law Enforcement Surveillance Network
Re:
Wifi jammers are illegal in the US, so I wouldn't expect a big surge in sales.
Next >>