> While the web has always been organized around intermediaries that shape what survives online and who sees it,
This statement, from the sixth paragraph of the article, is something that I would have liked to see addressed more in the article. The article implies that this is something that must always be true, or cannot be changed, and simply focuses on how we could have better/better funded/better protected intermediaries (AKA gatekeepers), and doesn't discuss the possibility of an internet (or part of the internet) without gatekeepers (and doesn't ask if it has ever existed/does exist/should exist)
I've heard this claim before and I've suspected it came from "using phone one the toilet correlates to more time spent on the toilet, and more time spent on the toilet correlates to more hemorrhoids" without (I don't know the proper terminology here) analyzing how those two correlations relate.
This article/study asks the question that I've wondered about: Is sitting on a toilet while using the phone (and not really trying to poop) different in some important way from sitting on a bench/chair/whatever while using the phone? The article hypothesizes that the shape of the seat may be the important distinction.
AKA "sitting and waiting for a poop" vs "sitting and waiting for a bus".
> Every bedroom of a rental is required to have a window in New York.
I don't think you meant this as specific as it sounds -- I suspect this requirement applies to coops, condos, and maybe even if you want to get official permission to use it as an owner-occupied single-family dwelling.
The rule is a residential rental rule. If you rent it out, the rule applies. The ownership structure does not matter.
I think there's actually a parallel rule that theoretically applies to owner-occupied buildings, but for obvious reasons there's a lot less enforcement. Beyond real estate agents not listing an illegal bedroom as a bedroom, for example, nobody is going to hunt you down for using a non-bedroom as a sleeping place.
> I don't want personal care items that have internal batteries at all, because they'll eventually die on me while the device itself (brush heads notwithstanding) is otherwise perfectly functional. I'd much rather keep rechargeable AA(A)s on hand for that kind of stuff. (I still haven't found a good electric razor for this purpose, though, and have actually just gone back to manual for the foreseeable future.)
My solution to this was to get an electric razor that doesn't use batteries. My 20-year-old no-battery electric Norelco razor was bought in a chain pharmacy. I've looked in recent years, and I don't see them any more in brick-and-mortar stores, but they're still made, and available online.
The (minor, IME) downside is that electric razors without batteries are generally on the low-end of the spectrum, rarely including the fancy (even non-battery-related) features found on the high end electric razors.
After Blip Festival NY stopped, there were some other festivals and festival-ish events in other cities that were not as convenient to me, so I stopped following as closely.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that, even at his worst, Linus limited his toxicity to professional-programmer kernel contributors (i.e. people who were employed by linux distros or hardware companies to contribute to Linux). Can anyone else remember/confirm this?
Regardless, to a newbie potential kernel contributor, that high level of toxicity can be intimidating, and the professional-programmers-only aspect is non-obvious, so it's easy to see why this would discourage hobbyists/free-time programmers from contributing.
That is my understanding also. It was mostly for people who were around and should know better. He would never do this to a new contributor. Granted, he almost never sees code from new contributors in review. But what he will do is, if there is something egregious from a new contributor, he lights of the maintainer of the system.
example. I don't remember what all system Greg KH is responsible for, but for the sake of argument, lets say USB. You as a new contributor, try to contribute a patch to the USB subsystem. Turns out it is total garbage. For it to get Linus's attention, it has to have gone through review by Greg KH. Linus will light up Greg and only Greg because Greg has been doing this for 20+ years.
Now, do I feel he sometimes goes over board and unprofessional? Yes. But people keep contributing and the thing keeps chugging along.
Or it may attract talented and responsible people, since it makes it more of an honor if a patch gets through the gauntlet. Especially since the gauntlet is fit for a system that literally affects billions of people in so many ways.
It's interesting that (in one regard) Sony is getting a PR win with the "StudioCanal has done this" narrative.
Another perspective: In accordance with the licensing system that Sony and their lobbyists helped establish, Sony's licensing agreement with StudioCanal came up for renewal. Sony decided that they didn't want to pay StudioCanal's perfectly reasonable() asking price.
I think it is quite tricky to argue that StudioCanal did anything wrong.
Sony isn't a naive child, they've got whole armies of lawyers analyzing the deals they sign. If Sony knowingly signs a horrible deal (such as a Netflix-like "you can show this bunch of content to users and let them download it for X years") which due to their desire to sell movies leads to them inevitably getting screwed over on their (now-mandatory) contract renewal, that's on them.
Either Sony should've insisted on a contract which included a right to sell perpetual sublicenses, or they shouldn't have "sold" those inherently-temporary movies to end users. It really is that simple.
They're not getting a PR win, I am redirecting people's attention to StudioCanal because I think hating on Sony is lazy, and also because having worked in the movie business I think I have some more insight into the licensing end of things.
StudioCanal wants to make as much money, like any publisher, but we don't know how much they wanted for this deal or how that compares to pricing for other IP. Movies are not fungible, really, and StudioCanal has a lot of classics. Like Disney, they keep the price up by rotating out of streaming licensing windows regularly; for example if your copy of terminator II disappeared from your Playstation you might be doubly upset to note it's also vanished from Netflix (or is just about to, I don't remember the exact dates).
Also, I think it's an misrepresentation (though surely unintentional) to talk about Sony's unwillingness to pay in the present tense. These movies were originally licensed/bought years ago, and Sony shut down movie sales on the Playstation store in 2021. I presume this was because they couldn't make the economics work, but it's possible that there was some antitrust angle since Sony produces films and antitrust in the US has historically frowned on film companies controlling both production and distribution. The DOJ repealed the 1948 'Paramount Decrees' in 2020 which might also have been a factor in Sony's decision-making.
I own a Nintendo Switch, and I've noticed that in the Nintendo store, old games regularly go on sale for in the ballpark of 80% off. Does that happen in the PS store?
This statement, from the sixth paragraph of the article, is something that I would have liked to see addressed more in the article. The article implies that this is something that must always be true, or cannot be changed, and simply focuses on how we could have better/better funded/better protected intermediaries (AKA gatekeepers), and doesn't discuss the possibility of an internet (or part of the internet) without gatekeepers (and doesn't ask if it has ever existed/does exist/should exist)
reply