It's been an increasingly &($ experience since about 1998. Doubleclick.com...

No, they are trying to equate intrusive software notifications with some sort of automobile safety hazard.

Not much software covers the speedometer in your car. In fact, annoyance isn't much of a vehicle safety issue, or we would not have on-ramps on the highway without traffic lights in the right-hand lane (in America, that is...).

I think we may agree that artists in any medium deserve to be paid for their work when they make it available for pay. And they are very right to keep it themselves if they wish to it, or set whatever limitations, restrictions, or requirements they have in mind. The GPL is a good example of this, copyright. The more remarkable one or more common. My complaint with copyright is that it extends beyond the life of the artist, and that doesn't strike me as Fair, unless the artist arranged for those rights to be held by someone else. Else. And then we get into the whole corporate copyright argument whether or not corporations should be allowed to hold copyright in. Definitely. Probably the thing to remember about that argument is that if the original artist, and if the cooperation employed the artist then the corporation as owner holds it for their life. Life. Well natural lifework corporation as infinite in concept. A mess

To me, while this is a union issue, there, of course seeking to protect their membership. I think this reaches into they a situation where they want their membership to be compensated for work they either lost, or were denied access to? I'm not sure I like that idea. But it doesn't really matter what I like, is it fair?

And we keep coming back to modern lease agreements where a commercial landlord makes us part of the lease payment. A share of revenue of the lessee. Or me. This is another business negotiation. In most cases that I'm familiar with, the commercial landlords would negotiate a lease without a share of revenue, it would just be a higher payment. Ultimately, they're looking for some value in return for providing the property. They're setting the value. Their Les c has to decide if it's tolerable or not. That's a business decision

On the other hand, I was not aware of this feature and enabled it IMMEDIATELY.

We're supposed to just take them at their word that this is unrelated to the white collar job cuts.

Their argument boils down to "well if it's a synthetic actor, we represent them too, so we are entitled to $".

No, no you aren't.

By that logic, if I draw a stick figure, I "owe" someone some $. If I sell it, I owe them some of that.
To be fair, congress has already laid the ground for this, with the idea that if I draw a big stick figure sexing a little stick figure, that (to some in Congress) is borderline kiddy porn.

A late comment, but I think this seems to be rent-seeking, masquerading as some form of protection or 'necessary' regulation.

I am a very lame producer, but I make really good money at it. It started as a hobby back in 2015.

I use Ai now with all our customers. We will NEVER hire anyone who has EVER used the word "SAG" in their resume or social media profile.

SAG => monopoly => control who can act => if you don't agree with SAG's politics, you can't act.

It's well past time to remove SAG from the market through market forces. Ai is absolutely AMAZING for my client base, they love being able to change the race, gender, location of a commercial with a few clicks.

I absolutely can't wait to send these SAG clowns packing.

A massive gamer who hasn't heard of Asus?

We continually see this - politicians saying Universal when it's not. By definition, if applies to a specific sector then it's not universal. Using the phrase muddies the waters between normal benefits system as usual, and the new (as in never implemented) concept of Universal Basic Income.

This post isn't a commentary on whether UBI is or is not a good idea, or whether benefits should or should not be introduced in this case. It's to stop people diluting concepts - UBI and the current benefits system (I'm in the UK) are separate concepts.

Ho, I understood this joke.

I'd read the first 10 books when I was younger but lost momentum and stopped. I finally powered through it a few years back, and found the change of pace from Jordan to Sanderson rather jarring.

I wonder if I would have enjoyed WoT more if the whole series had been on Sanderson's pace or Jordan's. Advantage Sanderson since Jordan's writing was ponderous at best.

This post started with the complaint that in areas where property values were increasing rapidly and/or significantly, businesses that were leasing did not share in these increases. And that it was not fair that they did not somehow profit from the property owners' own profits.

Which I still do not get. Property value increases generally should accrue to the property owner... Kinda obvious to me, but somehow, profiting from property value increases became an example of rent--seeking... And I still cannot make sense of that, in that I reject it as a misapplication.

But, if you sympathize with the lessees' complaint, I understand. You and they are just wrong.

This is instructive.

Page 35 is very interesting. Pages 43 & 45 do not load on my machine, which is disappointing, they may be very instructive.