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

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#101

Post by AlexandrB »

yellowapple wrote: post #64
Sebb767 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which will then contain a link to the file, since storing the whole file on the chain is too expensive. Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees - surprisingly surpassing the already horrible pay ratio of music labels.

> Which will then contain a link to the file Why? You already have a copy on your local machine ("local machine" being anywhere you'd want to play that file). What's more important is the hash; if you really care about remote storage, IPFS kills both those birds with one stone. > Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees There are other NFT-capable blockchains besides Ethereum, you k…

As someone who loves organizing my music, a file hash would be a shitty solution. I want to be able to edit tags and transcode the song (e.g. for iTunes compatibility) without losing ownership.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#102

Post by bitexploder »

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?

Heads of many agencies are appointed, but all of the institutional knowledge of say the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is buried within the organization. If you want anything done you must work within those organizations. Places like the OMB and the layers that support congress. Power brokers from their day like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. The lobbyists that actually write the laws congress signs, the “negotiators” they use to horse trader. The military more directly serves the president, but these other agencies have accreted tremendous power. I don’t think it is some grand conspiracy, but the US government is a massive organism and some of its organs are harder to control than others.

In simple terms: were they elected and do you pay for their salary?

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#103

Post by zdragnar »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #92
sailfast wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 implem…

On June 17, the Secretary of Interior ordered the Department of Interior to take down a public website detailing settlement agreements and final dispositions.

Score one for losing transparency into the cycle of bureaucrats funding former bureaucrats of similar political alignment by abusing the courts.

It's really sad when you realize that Trump's administration (when the initial rule establishing the website) was more transparent than Bidens. Before, the settlements were posted immediately; now, if you even know about them at all, you need to wait months after filing a FOIA to find out about it.

Some of the more prolific groups have been getting 1 to 3 million dollars a year from the settlements alone.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#104

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

> since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default

No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list.

> And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race.

SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they'd get around it by not covering outpatient dialysis - of which 99.5% of patients are end-stage renal failure - and SCOTUS permitted it.

Kagan's dissent correctly pointed out it's like banning yarmulkes and claiming you're not discriminating against Jews.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#105

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #104
Dylan16807 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. > And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race. SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they…

> No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list.

Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#106

Post by Closi »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #52
Closi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books). So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world? And if I have it but am not allowed to listen to it, what is that lack of playing-permission called if not 'not owning a license'? > It's not a license because it…

> So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world? I don't recall the precise case law that applies to CDs. There's certainly a version of things (probably the one desired by record companies) in which one or both of these is true (a) you can't rip it (b) you can't listen to the rips after you've sold it. Remember, methods of enforcing such a legal regime are distinct from…

I just mean that a lot of the chats in this thread seem to be saying “if we didn’t have licences, the alternative would be x”

Where x describes a licence, just with different licensing terms.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#107

Post by ceejayoz »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #105
ceejayoz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since 15/19/24/26 make it clear that this is a right people have by default No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. > And that's ignoring how hair color ties into race. SCOTUS is pretty good at that. See the just announced Marietta case; Congress said you can't discriminate against end-stage renal failure patients. An insurer decided they…

> No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.

We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#108

Post by salgernon »

8bitsrule wrote: post #36

Good news about the Four Tet decision. He's been a consistently high-quality, highly-innovative EM creator for over 20 years. Hopefully getting 50% of the streaming and download take instead of 13% will rock that industry. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-61871547

By coincidence, after reading this submitted article and not knowing the named artist, I completed the game “Universal Paperclips” by “Everybody House Games” today, and the brief credit scroll listed

  ‘10 MIDI’ by Four Tet, (c) 2017 BMG
So off to listen to his content now.

(Edited slightly)

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#109

Post by feet »

ceejayoz wrote: post #107
Dylan16807 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.

We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.

Wow it sounds like we shouldn't be forbidding people from voting at all, why the hell would we make specific carve outs. Its absolutely absurd, almost like the people who wrote the legislation wanted it that way

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#110

Post by Dylan16807 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #107
Dylan16807 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they say the opposite. They set up specific conditions you can't use to disqualify for voting. It's a short list. Those amendments don't directly give maximum protection, but they establish it as a right, which seems to indirectly give pretty good protection.

We needed the various amendments because it was entirely legal to forbid voting based on race, gender, age, etc. That implies it's still legal to forbid voting based on other reasons not listed.

The 24th and 26th were making adjustments to voting restrictions that were allowed by the 14th. Those rules applied to everyone in theory.

The 15th is kind of iffy, but slavery interacts weirdly with citizenship to begin with. And before the 15th there was nothing calling voting a right.

As far as the 19th goes, the 14th was in big part scoped to male voters at the time.

Overall I think it would be pretty hard to argue the constitutionality of any restriction that isn't applied "evenly".

Post reply on HN