Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schroedinger's streaming service just died

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#91

Post by hbossy »

googlryas wrote: post #4

Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license? Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality…

>But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? It's not your job to prove you own something but their to prove you stole it.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#92

Post by thaumasiotes »

sailfast wrote: post #75
bitexploder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.

Such as? Not trying to be pedantic, just looking for a more specific example. Are you talking about political appointees or public servants? If so, where? What agencies?

Here is a right-coded example of a hypothetical agency behavior with many claimed historical occurrences:

Suppose you are the EPA and you'd like to implement some environmental rule that might or might not be strictly within your legal powers.

You work out a deal with a friendly organization and they sue you for improper stewardship of the environment (with details, obviously, according to the rule you want to implement). Then, instead of fighting their lawsuit, you settle it, agreeing to their demands -- which consist of the rule you wanted to implement. That rule is now one you are obligated to enforce pursuant to a legal agreement, instead of something you implemented on your own authority. This structure tends to prevent normal accountability mechanisms from working.

(As a side note, I'm always surprised, when I see descriptions of this tactic, that it's permissible for an agency to agree to take actions that are notionally not within the power of the agency. I would be interested to know more about what exactly is going on there.)

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#93

Post by GaylordTuring »

Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

If that's the case, that's because the people are choosing crappy politicians who let that happen. If a father of a family lets the five-year old decide where to live, what to eat, and what to buy, that doesn't mean the five-year old has the power, it just means that the father has voluntarily given the power to him. However, he could take it back whenever he felt like it.

Same thing goes for lobbyists. They would have zero power if politicians gave them zero power. If the population would be smart and informed, this wouldn't happen. So, what's happening now is totally a result of democracy, which of course is a totally ridiculous idea^1, but it's still democratic.

[1]: Let people who have absolutely no idea how to run things decide who should run things. That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#94

Post by feet »

sailfast wrote: post #76
feet wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lmao what? They write the laws! Think tanks are literally paid to draft legislation

Think tanks are not the government. They are private institutions. Typically when one uses the term "deep state" you mean someone working in the government that has their own agenda and/or are acting on a specific conspiracy / cabal agenda counter to the direction of, say, the administration providing the guidance and direction. This is why the person asked about employees vs. lobbyists.

Yea, its the normal government and the deep state is the fact that its actually controlled by corporations and lobbyists. The corporations and lobbyists and think tanks are the deep state. They're the ones really in control, spreading propaganda and getting Americans to vote against their personal interests. Politicians are the biggest cucks for capitalism because they all get rich in office by fearing the corporate lobbyists and giving them the legislation that they want. That's the deep state

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#95

Post by feet »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #86
ceejayoz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of what you describe is an evolution from the original design. https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-... > At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left vo…

> Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting. I think the 14th amendment would block any such ban, since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default. And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.

Its only illegal if you're explicitly excluding people

Oh but if you make laws that just happen to make it harder for black people and Latinos to vote, its just a bad coincidence yea? Awe so sad, wish we could do something about it!

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#97

Post by dane-pgp »

hbossy wrote: post #91
googlryas wrote: post #4

Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license? Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality…

>But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? It's not your job to prove you own something but their to prove you stole it.

> their [job] to prove you stole it.

That's a sound legal principle, but unfortunately it doesn't apply in all situations and in all jurisdictions:

"If the defendant is considered to have a criminal lifestyle, the court ... must decide whether he has benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ and, if so, by how much. ... The burden is on the defendant to rebut any assumption made."

https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/confiscation/confi...

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#98

Post by rightbyte »

GaylordTuring wrote: post #93
Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

If that's the case, that's because the people are choosing crappy politicians who let that happen. If a father of a family lets the five-year old decide where to live, what to eat, and what to buy, that doesn't mean the five-year old has the power, it just means that the father has voluntarily given the power to him. However, he could take it back whenever he felt like it. Same thing goes for lobbyists. They would ha…

> That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be.

I guess they would vote for an airliner captain? E.g. most people go to doctors for medical adcive rather than new age mumbo jumbo. I don't see the problem in this particular case.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#99

Post by thfuran »

rightbyte wrote: post #98
GaylordTuring wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, that's because the people are choosing crappy politicians who let that happen. If a father of a family lets the five-year old decide where to live, what to eat, and what to buy, that doesn't mean the five-year old has the power, it just means that the father has voluntarily given the power to him. However, he could take it back whenever he felt like it. Same thing goes for lobbyists. They would ha…

> That's like if the passengers of an airplane, having zero experience with aviation, deciding on who the captain should be. I guess they would vote for an airliner captain? E.g. most people go to doctors for medical adcive rather than new age mumbo jumbo. I don't see the problem in this particular case.

A surprisingly large number of people go in for the new age mumbo jumbo or, uh, old-timey mumbo jumbo. And that despite quite heavy regulation on medical claims and on the qualifications of medical practicianers.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#100

Post by thfuran »

sailfast wrote: post #74
zdragnar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.

It's a nice fantasy, but it's simply not the case in my experience. The details are deferred because you want to be able to adapt some things faster than you can change a law and you want it done with a comment period by subject matter experts, rather than by legislators. In general, however, those agencies are slow moving (requires comment period, must decide given bounds, funding limited, etc) and pretty narrowly h…

>it's simply not the case in my experience

And how much US Congressional experience do you have?

Post reply on HN