Comment The Fat Lady Sings (Score 1) 43
It's over.
It's over.
l think this comment wins the thread.
The time has come for a European University CSE department group to reverse-engineer HDMI 2.1 and publish a compatible implementation on Github.
There's a solid history of this category of work going back 30 years.
They have certain legal protections for compatibility and public interest work.
This 1990's licensing model is antiquated and obsolete.
IEEE and ITU have abdicated their responsibility so sombody like Valve needs to do for transport spec what AV1 did for codecs and linux did for operating systems.
"A rising tide lifts all boats" is common among free marketeers and communists but opposed by fascists.
> Is there a huge difference between a criminal organization and a multinational corporation?
Yes, huge difference.
The common-law criminals running corporations get statutory protection from liability for the crimes they commit under corporate letterhead.
A regular mafia has individual liability.
In the same spirit as the commercial, here is another variant of the song: Most horrible time of the year
Trigger warning: horror, seafood.
Seems to depend on location. In my home city in Europe, it was 3-4 times a day, even shortly after the war.
But that was before mailmen had to earn $300k in salary and benefits.
Numbers mean nothing once enough inflation is involved. But back in those same days, a mailman could support a family on his salary. Not a luxury life for sure, but enough to rent a place and put food on the table. Women working was still a somewhat new thing.
Yes, this stuff is moving digital as well. At different speeds in different countries.
To watch your dogs a wifi device is OK but if real security is a concern understand that home invasion gangs use ~10W wifi jammers as standard practice now.
Amcrest supports RTSP pull and SFTP push which is handy.
And we all know that won't happen.
The thing with fines is that all the people ACTIVELY involved have interests that don't align with the public and taxpayers.
The shops are ok with fines if they happen rarely and in manageable amounts. Then they can just factor them in as costs of doing business.
The inspectors need occasional fines to justify their existance. So, counter-intuitively, they have absolutely no interest in the businesses they inspect to actually be compliant. Just compliant enough that the non-compliance doesn't make more headlines than their fines. So they'll come now and then, but not so often that the business actually feels pressured into changing things.
You misunderstand wealth.
Most wealth of the filthy rich is in assets. Musk OWNS stuff that is worth X billions. That doesn't mean he as 140 mio. in cash sitting in his bottom drawer.
Moreoever, much of the spending the filthy rich do is done on debt. They put up their wealth as a collateral and buy stuff with other people's (the banks) money. There's some tax trickery with this the exact details I forgot about.
So yes, coughing up $140 mio. is at least a nuissance, even if on paper it's a rounding error.
The actual story that got buried is that the filthy rich are now in full-blown "I rule the world" mode when their reaction to a fee is not "sorry, we fucked up, won't happen again", but "let's get rid of those rules, they bother me".
If they cared, they could force price compliance automatically using e-paper tags. The fact they don't deploy modern solutions to a known issue, means they don't want to solve it.
These automated tags are about $15-$20 each. If you buy a million you can probably get them for $10, but still. Oh yes, and their stated lifetime is 5 years. And you STILL need an employee to walk around updating because it's done via NFC.
In many cases, there are modern tech solutions, but pen-and-paper is still cheaper, easier and more reliable.
It's not necessarily malice. What I mean is: They are certainly malicious, but maybe not in this.
Now THAT is a rare example of an actually smart law.
No government funds needed to enforce the policy, while the stores have an incentive to post the right prices. Why the max $5 though?
My grandparents and parents sometimes talked about how mail used to work.
Delivery within the same city within a few hours. The mailman would come to your house several times during the same day. Every day.
Telephones changed that. With phones, if something is urgent but not so urgent you go yourself, you can make a call. So the demand for same-day-delivery disappeared. Visiting each house only once means a mailman can cover more houses in the same amount of hours.
Privatizing mail delivery is an astonishingly stupid idea, given that what is left in physical mail delivery is often important, official documents.
One reason is the dopamine rush that one experiences when one buys something new. It's addictive and if people aren't otherwise happy with life they are going to chase after all kinds of things that provide this rush.
The natural, unenlightened, mind believes that happiness is attained by fulfilling desires (and chasing that dopamine rush). This only works in the short term and the effect weakens the more one indulges. Overcoming this requires education about this, self-awareness, discipline, and the means/motive/opportunity to create a fulfilling life by more sustainable means. Absolutely none of this arises naturally in a path-of-least-resistance life.
Marketers know this, and exploit it gleefully for profit.
A 2015 handbook laid the groundwork for the nascent field of "Meeting Science". Among other things, the research revealed that the real issue may not be the number of meetings, but rather how they are designed, the lack of clarity about their purpose, and the inequalities they (often unconsciously) reinforce...
You needed a handbook for that?
Anyone who ever went to a business meeting could've told you that.
By my experience, it takes only 4 things to make a meeting productive: a) someone is in charge of the meeting and moderation, b) that someone had time to prepare, c) everyone in the meeting has received an agenda with enough lead time to have read it and (if necessary) prepare their part, at least a bit and finally d) there is at least a simple protocol of the meeting for those who couldn't attend, those who dozed off in the middle, and those who claim next week that something else was agreed on.
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH