That parts gonna happen anyway.

Even if battery energy density started getting close to that of liquid hydrocarbons, and thats a looong way off still, youd still need more batteries than you would fuel because batteries dont get lighter as they discharge like burned fuel does, rocket equation stuff. A 747 carries ~150k kilograms of fuel, if that didnt burn off thats an extra 37k kg the first quarter of the flight, an extra 75k kg the first half of the flight and so on...

Battery planes may never make widespread sense, if we ever start generating enough carbon free energy cheaply enough and even if all ground transport goes battery electric or whatever, at some point it might still be worth it to just make carbon neutral jet fuel with air fuel synthesis. That seems closer on the horizon than the battery tech needed for large planes to be feasible, hard to beat jet turbines for that application.

A steam gift card can be laundered entirely within the steam economy tho, a dunkin gift card doesnt let you buy and resell special donut skins.

Oh thats already happening. https://www.reddit.com/r/simps...

The alerts are so much worse too like "Hey, looks like you slept like shit, should probably take it easy today." thanks google but not really up to either of us. Already knew that and fitbit was a lot gentler about it...

I know everybody turns off any new features immediately upon release, but with the new(ish) agent the way some of the various bits and pieces have come together has been pretty great.

Credits are global now, so youre watching something "why does he look familiar?", you click down to the actor now it shows you their whole filmography, you can watchlist stuff right there, and even a little category 'Youve seen them in' with anything with them in any of your libraries youve watched by recent. Not just other shows if youre watching a show or only other movies if youre watching movies. And since you can just search and browse through anything/anyone now, its actually replaced IMDB for me just because its sooo much cleaner. https://watch.plex.tv/person/n... vs https://www.imdb.com/name/nm00...

And speaking of the watchlist, thats universal now, you can search and add stuff you dont have, from any service, even stuff thats not on any service, and the watchlist can interface directly with the *arrs, so youre looking up that guy from that thing, watchlist another of his movies, radarr goes and does its thing. You can add upcoming stuff too and they even have trailers now, so i dont have to go to Youtube anymore cuz it doesnt make me wade through 20 fake AI trailers before finding the one on the actual studios channel and then it doesnt autoplay some assholes reaction or breakdown of the trailer i just watched right after.

AND if your users have their watchlists public, you can monitor theirs too, so friends and family can just watchlist stuff you dont have without leaving the plex app, so you dont need to try to convince them to use a third party app like Omni to request stuff.

All the other social features still suck tho, their own lack of features makes you abuse the rating system as a filter for other things instead of as a rating system, but replacing IMDB and youtube for at least my purposes has been pretty nice. Some of my users dont have their watchlists public either so i still have a facebook group chat for requests cuz who wants to use some third party app for requests. .

$750 is ridiculous tho, i paid $100 during a 50% off sale a couple of black fridays ago, but with all my collections and playlists and everything and especially all my users switching to Jellyfin wouldnt be as simple as everyone pretends, but if in the future they roll out Plex2 to loophole my lifetime or try to charge my users individually ill figure it out.

A news aggregator should write blurbs like a news site, and not assume every reader knows what every proper noun is. Plex, an animal husbandry fanservice anime sharing company, ...

"Despite the limitations of the 1993-era sound card drivers,"

The Gravis Ultrasound ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), as well as other soundcards which *USED WAVETABLE SYNTHESIS* were available.

Yeah, FM-synthesis sounds like a robot. The SNES SPC-7000 was wavetable. The Sega Genesis used a Z80 for FM synthesis. A GUS card was supperior to the SPC-7000.

If you want to know how good the music is, either run DOOM in DOSBOX with a correct GUS Wavetable patch set (which will let you know how *ACTUALLY GOOD* the music is). Alternatively, the Doom & Doom 2 remaster on Steam has an actual band covering the actual tracks. That also sounds awesome.

Lol; I guess the author wasn't aware of the state of the art in 1993 if that's what they wrote.

You can stare at the full moon all night if you like, because the albedo of the moon has filtered most of the light including the UV band that naturally passes through our own atmosphere. The three mile circle illuminated by a mirror would bounce a significantly higher amount of UV than the moon's albedo. If you treat the 60ft reflector as an analog to a pinhole in a pinhole camera, the circular area on the Earth surface would be a rough projection of the image of the sun.

(1) I wonder how they calculate the UV exposure for the observer on the surface within the illumination area.

(2) I wonder if you'd be able to detect places in a coherent projection where sunspots or coronal ejections are reflected through the "pinhole" effect of this arrangement.

I've seen some people praising this mass layoff as being better and less ghoulish than most others, but that's pure marketing. The severance package being more generous than it had to be is purely a marketing expense, like any other marketing expense. We should be both 1. glad for those affected that they're not being screwed harder than they had to be while also being 2. clear-eyed that Dorsey is doing that to do a bit of reputation laundering. A tactic to try to get people to think of him as being less ghoulish than we should properly regard him as. Just as his scapegoating AI (it's not AI) and his remarkably human and non-robotic announcement are designed purely to make him look good and discourage us from thinking he is a ghoul. But don't be fooled. He's a ghoul.

The existence of countless freemium businesses disproves the validity of that take on its face.

I would say more, but I already wrote a more detailed response to a similar point here.

That's a pretty contrived hypothetical that AFAIK has never been litigated before.

Regardless, I don't see a problem with people doing that being legal. I'm not sure many other people would have a problem with it either.

That take is oft-repeated, but I just don't buy it. Never have.

File sharing being legal does not make it impossible for authors in any medium to make money. Anyone who believes that simply lacks imagination.

More than that, by now after decades of seeing new business models evolve with the internet, it's fair to say that to subscribe to that take lacks more than imagination â" it lacks observation. Many modern content creators incorporate the reality that file sharing is widespread and inevitable into their business models. The most obvious examples are the countless successful freemium businesses.

If we did legalize file sharing, the result would be 1. little would change because most of the people who would freeload already were freeloading and 2. we'd see even more creative business models emerge to ensure creators continue getting paid now that nobody would be in denial anymore about the existence of a large, inevitable group of freeloaders in all aspects of content consumption.

Free at the point of consumption and creators getting paid are not mutually exclusive. Putting these two things in tension and creating artificial scarcity because for one side to win, the other side must lose is fallacious, zero-sum thinking. We can do better than that as a society, and I hope some day we will.

We all have strong opinions about rms. Some of his ideas are wacky. Some of his ideas are brilliant. I think this is one of his more insightful takes.

Copyright law has a distinction between commercial for-profit infringement, which is regarded as a criminal offense vs. noncommercial infringement which is regarded as a civil offense.

I think this distinction is useful, but it's one degree too severe. For-profit infringement should be the civil offense, and noncommercial infringement (consumer copying) should be fully legal, just as rms is saying.

Why? Because copyright wasn't created to allow authors to impose a toll on every individual consumption of every individual work, otherwise libraries wouldn't have been widespread alongside early copyright laws.

Instead, copyright law was created to make sure the author of a work was the only one who had any right to make any profit at all off of their work.

People often forget this, but the origin of copyright law is important to remember. The Statute of Anne was passed to address the growing problem of people making and selling copies of books they were not the author of, an activity which became much more common once the printing press was invented. The law was passed with the intention of protecting London's publishing business from this unfair competition and in the centuries that followed, other countries passed similar laws. Notably absent from this law: a ban on libraries or noncommercial sharing of books.

That's why file sharing should be legal, and business models should adapt to the decades-old reality that file sharing is widespread and inevitable. Some businesses have adapted rather well. While it's unfortunate that DRM is widespread, things like streaming services aren't that bad an adaptation. They just need a bit more adapting to truly embrace the 21st century.

Also, as a fun aside, one thing that baffles me is if for-profit copyright infringement is a criminal offense, as described above, then why aren't the major AI companies who commit mass copyright infringement with a profit motive in the training and development of their models being held criminally liable for their actions? The courts are currently twisting themselves into pretzels to try to invent some kind of fair use exception for them out of whole cloth because it feels wrong to charge them all with criminal behavior. But the truth is the law is not being interpreted in good faith, in part because the law itself is horrifyingly outdated and needs to be updated and modernized.

But the modernization we need is simple: Reduce for-profit infringement to a civil offense and reduce noncommercial infringement to being legal. We don't need to tinker with copyright terms, we don't need a vast expansion of the public domain, none of that. Just make file sharing legal.

Nah, I kid. No one ever read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is not surprising. This is some folks who have formalized a hypothesis that is *decades old*, and the reporters? They were born yesterday, apparently.