Would it benefit the public to completely do away with the other 1%? How could something like The Amazing Digital Circus have been produced purely on a hobby budget?

How does the producer of a video go about seeding "word of mouth" and getting onto "curated lists"?

Yes, by excluding a lot of viewers who lack an IP address that can accept inbound TCP connections, unless I'm missing something. It also excludes viewers who have an iPhone or iPad and don't have a Mac with which to build and ad-hoc sign an app because Apple has reportedly banned BitTorrent clients from the App Store.

And how might that have been? I might be misremembering, but this was my recollection:

1. Movie studios and TV channels funded production of videos to be viewed by the public. Very few pitches got funded.
2. Movie studios promoted upcoming and newly released movies through television advertising, and TV channels promoted shows to the channel's own viewers.
3. Movies were paywalled, and TV was ad-supported (in the case of broadcast) or behind the combination of ads and a paywall (in the case of cable).

Also, before YouTube, most end-user devices on the Internet had an IP address, even if dynamic, which could accept incoming connections. Nowadays, a lot of Internet subscribers' devices are behind network address translation (NAT), and if you share your IP address with the whole neighborhood, the ISP is unlikely to forward a port to your device.

Boosters are risking their freedom and even their lives. If it was easier for them to find work then they'd do legitimate work instead of boosting. Selling at flea markets is a job itself, so they're clearly willing to work.

Because the website helpfully provides structured data with tags which make it clear what it is, it's very easy to just use old fashioned and cheap filters to exclude content like that from the training set without losing anything else.

Protesting something that doesn't happen is better PR for you than protesting something that does...

Under your proposal:
1. How would the producer of a video cover the cost of producing the video before it even reaches BitTorrent?
2. How would a viewer learn of a video that they are likely to enjoy?
3. How would the system work around users who "leech", or view the video without contributing to its decentralized hosting?

If you've got 1 bad cop, and 9 "good" cops who are covering for him, what you've actually got there is 10 bad cops.

You have it exactly right. I can see why you didn't post with an identity, you'd get punished by the reich wingers. Wage theft exceeds all other theft combined but maggots are still crying about shoplifters

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

You're such a sad little man

The company is the operator.

We can hold corporations responsible, we just usually don't

You know the reason all the games have a bunch of gender fluid furries? Because that's what the kids want to see. You know why? Because it makes you apoplectic.

"What is the regret from ending those things?"

Even if you don't care about the tens of thousands of lives lost because of the kind of piece of shit you are, you should care about ending USAID leading to the screwworm reaching the US. And maybe you would if you weren't in Russia.

I don't doubt that you've worked on bad code, but Apple has more money than God and can afford the developer time to fix it.