That would be nice, since YouTube's copyright system exists solely to keep YouTube from getting sued by big media companies. It goes way above and beyond any legal requirements of copyright purely so YT can appease the big rightsholders. If they get legal shielding from those suits, then maybe they can dial the creator-screwification back a few notches.

I think the copyright term should be 25 years for free. That's basically exclusivity for a generation. After that, you can renew annually, starting for $10,000 the first year and doubling every year after, up to a maximum of 25 renewals. So you can keep something in copyright for 50 years if you really want to spend $600 billion on it. Realistically most valuable IP would fall out within 35-40 years, which still would be within the lifetimes of most people that were part of the culture from which it emerged.

I might agree with this argument if not for
1) libraries exist, where you can get movies, music (and even books!) for free
2) people with disposable income steal stuff all the time. There's no guarantee that having the means to purchase something means people won't just take it if they can

My current phone has three cameras on it, two for regular use and one for selfies. If they increased the resolution of the cameras, they could easily change it to two cameras.

I could. I don't look at it as a phone so much as a foldable tablet with a screen sufficiently large as to be actually useful.

If it also happens to work well as a smartphone when folded down then that could likewise be useful.

Trouble is, it needs to be no more expensive than a phone and a tablet separately purchased in order for most potential customers to justify it. If it costs more than both combined then scant few will bother adopting it.

The design of the mouse in general needs a rethink. When mice contained an actual ball in a 3/4" or so diameter it was necessary for a particular shape in order to facilitate that ball having somewhere to go, and that somewhere ended up being under the joints where the fingers meet the palm. This was not the most efficient place to put movement detection since that part of the hand doesn't move as much as the fingertips do.

A modern mouse would work better if it had wells for the four fingers, and each finger's well was also a button, with the optical pickup to the pad/desk located under the middle finger. Or even go with a couple of optical pickups to allow for tilt. But don't have the mouse go all of the way back to the palm anymore, and keep the finger buttons as close to the surface as possible.

Was going to say, there were split-spacebar keyboards back in the day, I worked with lot of Compaq Presarios with that arrangement.

As a lefty it sucked because if the keyboard was set up for that left-side to do something like backspace on a public kiosk computer it wasn't readily changed to be usable.

For someone's own personal computer fine, do what you want. But don't expect it to become an industry standard anymore than say, Dvorak layout is.

It's interesting that you took this to intelligence and software coding when I was talking about skill and had not limited my criticism to software coding. Honestly at the time I made my post, software wasn't even on my radar, and skill only weakly correlates with intelligence.

The insidious part about using free AI is that you're training something owned by someone else to do your work. That means whomever owns that AI now has the option of replacing some aspect of your work, rendering you redundant.

For the short term, free AI empowers the unskilled masses because they can use what skilled people misguidedly trained it to do. For the long term, AI only empowers the wealthy who own it, to the harm of the unskilled and skilled alike.

It absolutely 100% reflects EXACTLY what your internal culture is. Otherwise they would be demonstrating how that sort of behavior, and this specific instance were addressed by leadership to make it clear thats not acceptable.

But no one did anything did they. It was entirely acceptable, and theyve been promoted

So what's the CVSS score on this vulnerability?

That's correct, and it's not their mission. When I was looking into Proton mail a few years ago, they were promising privacy against tracking by corporations, not anonymity from government investigation. They were positioning their services as an alternative to Google's & Microsoft's data gathering. There is a free tier, so some people might be able to successfully use it for fully covert communications, but that's not what interested me in it.

Perhaps I'm being mildly alarmist, but I don't trust entities that seem to push for their fork of an open source project to dominate the project it was derived from. Looking at the development-chart based on StarOffice derivatives, that major version-jump that Libre had was steered by Collabora. It then makes me question if they had a hand in closing down the Libre online version specifically to steer users to their own system.

We've been collecting physical movies for a long time, far longer than streaming services were a thing. For a long time my collection was predominantly Laserdisc of all things and my wife's was mostly VHS as her family had been recording off of TV for decades.

At this point DVD and Blu-Ray comprise most of our movie and TV collection but I still have well over 500 laserdiscs.

The only annoyance is physical storage. But with something like 2700 titles that isn't exactly surprising.

We got into physical media because for all intents and purposes once we have it, it's ours forever. Clearly the studios and content owners didn't like not being able to make money off of us again and again, but that's fine, we are not interested in being their ongoing revenue stream.

I have a feeling that streaming is going to backfire. People are going to become weary of trying to find a source for something and either they'll choose to go without or else they'll switch to physical media, and a lot of programming that was only on streaming will end up being essentially lost films. Lost in part because no one cares enough to try to find them, no fanbase. Sure, some will survive because they were good enough, but a lot of stuff that was entertaining but not renowned will just disappear.