621–630 of 661 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
Good thing DRM is not as protected in many countries and the anti-DRM movement include some hosters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
Then just host it elsewhere. Spotify isn't an American company and not everyone who uses Spotify lives in America.
> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what.
was what violation would cause Github specifically to take it down, not whether it could ever find a host. The parent brought up Github, not I.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.
Good thing DRM is not as protected in many countries and the anti-DRM movement include some hosters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from AppKit/UIKit I tried to learn Qt and it was just awful. I hated how tightly coupled with C++ it was. Everything was based around subclassing and overriding methods, there was no way to just have a dumb UIView and set its frame and add a bunch of subviews to it. There was also no clean way to expose a C ABI to use a scripting language (with an FFI) to configure the UI easily All of the Qt apps I know about…
I know what you mean. Would love to just have AppKit/UIKit with some platform integrations (e.g. correct widget themes) on other platforms. Closest that exists to that is GNUStep, but it’s stuck on an old version of Objective-C (no Swift) and targets something like OS X 10.6 with API compatibility. Outside of the that the next closest I’ve tinkered with is GTK, but since version 3 it kinda gave up on looking right ru…
It uses an old version of ObjC? Are you sure that's correct? ObjC is open source right? There is no reason to be using an old version.
Yeah the frameworks are kinda old but the new frameworks (since ~2014) don't really bring anything new to the table. And Swift is overrated anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually make plenty of money as a very technical commercial artist coming from a dev background, but thanks for your condescending and presumptuous concern. Believe it or not, I actually care enough about people who aren’t even me to point out when people are doing something materially unfair just because they can. If you hate people commenting on your admittedly unethical behavior, you might consider not publicly…
Your opinion represents everything that stops progress: The idea that we can use moral instead of sane legislation. I never said I was morally wrong. I merely said that I did not have a moral upper hand. I think I am morally indifferent. > you must pay all of your music and other content, then I do in fact pay for my music. I do in fact have news paper subscriptions. I don't think you got my point: I don't both want…
You can’t be “morally indifferent” if you’re engaging in activities that aren’t morally neutral. You’re just being indifferent to the fact that your actions aren’t moral. This isn’t complicated.
Your paying something to someone else doesn’t absolve you from not paying someone.
People generally see themselves as good people, and they use who they are, and other things they do to justify wrongdoing. This is a great example of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PS: I also specifically noted that I wasn’t suggesting getting rid of your ad blocker. I think the ad-driven surveillance capitalism model is a scourge on humanity, and I hope, for your sake, that you never have to see another ad, or be tracked by some creepy spy network ever again. But you, like many other people in tech, conveniently ignore the practically limitless sources of entertainment you can pay for directly…
I live in a country where more than 80% of my salary goes to redistribution. That redistribution also finances artists through grants, education. I do not believe in your rather narrow sighted way of thinking about how one pays for the artists - that is has to be private, directly for the service, and on commercial terms. Especially since "me and many people in tech" has probably supported artists way more than you e…
The fact that you’re using your residence in a country with more humane economic policy as justification for treating people with the exact opposite principles exemplifies that.
Stop the mental gymnastics. You feel entitled to people’s art, and your self-image of being a good person with the right political ideals absolves you from what you consider to be a minor indiscretion in simply taking it. You’re wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, which is why I said... >... if people are really digging a piece of music then please buy it directly from the label, the artist, etc. via other means, if possible.
while this is adorable and maybe even is "giving more to the artist" if ever true, do artists only deserve to be paid only when someone "decides to pony up for an album"? that's a nice $10+ hurdle that will ensure it happens as rarely as possible. even $1 for a single song is apparently enough of a hurdle. do artists not deserve to be paid if their song is just being played? it's just stiffing artists, whose music co…
To expand on that, I have a Spotify subscription. If I love the music and find myself listening to it regularly, I go and buy it so that they can have more than the pennies they get from my Spotify streams.
I also never said the phrase "decides to pony up for an album", so I'm not sure what those quotes are for. I said, "a piece of music", which could very well be a single song.
But thank you kindly for putting words into my mouth and then snarkily calling them "adorable". I greatly appreciate it. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what you mean. Would love to just have AppKit/UIKit with some platform integrations (e.g. correct widget themes) on other platforms. Closest that exists to that is GNUStep, but it’s stuck on an old version of Objective-C (no Swift) and targets something like OS X 10.6 with API compatibility. Outside of the that the next closest I’ve tinkered with is GTK, but since version 3 it kinda gave up on looking right ru…
Yea, GNUstep isn't bad. It uses an old version of ObjC? Are you sure that's correct? ObjC is open source right? There is no reason to be using an old version. Yeah the frameworks are kinda old but the new frameworks (since ~2014) don't really bring anything new to the table. And Swift is overrated anyway.
Disagree regarding frameworks, though. The newer snapshot-based APIs for NSTableView, NSOutlineView, and NSCollectionView (added in 2020 as part of macOS 11) are a massive improvement over the old index-based ones for example, and there’s been numerous polish and quality of life improvements scattered throughout.
Also disagree about Swift if only for the large number of things it comes with out of the box that’d require a third party dependency with Objective-C, but so many more errors being caught at compile time, no need to maintain header files, and no awkward split between C and Obj-C for basic types are nice too. I still enjoy Obj-C for some types of projects but as project complexity increases so too does my preference towards Swift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.
Billion dollar company that still isn’t profitable.
And during that process, Spotify wants to be treated as if they are profitable. They don't want consumers to be looking at them like they're a fly-by-night business whose entire existence depends on raising prices in the future once consumers have no alternatives to switch to. They don't want podcasting partners to be looking at every business deal as a temporary arrangement that will only last until Spotify feels comfortable trying to pull the rug out beneath them. If we're going to start acting like businesses are charity cases when indie developers do anything they dislike, then we should stop acting like these "charities" are sustainable businesses at all.
Spotify doesn't run ads saying, "hey, we can't make money and we're hoping that goodwill and investor greed is enough to keep this engine running for one more year until its safe to start charging you what we actually need to survive."
It's reasonable for developers and consumers to treat businesses with substantial market control as if they are businesses and not charities. That treatment is consistent with how Spotify advertises and portrays itself and with the decisions that the company makes about the market. It's not an accident that Spotify is in this position, it's a conscious choice in service of pursuing a long-term strategy of market domination. It's also not a healthy choice for the market overall, so Spotify choosing to put itself into this position is not a moral obligation for consumers or developers to treat them with some kind of special consideration. If anything, we should be more harsh to companies who try to decrease competition by creating an artificially unstainable market and starving out sustainable businesses and funding models.
For all intents and purposes Spotify is a billion dollar company making moves to lock down open ecosystems like podcasting that are consistent with a billion dollar company. If it's also a poorly managed billion dollar company that's lying to consumers about the actual cost of delivering music, then that's their problem -- it's not something we need to feel guilty about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch Spotify revoke their public API key or reduce access to the public API because of this
Let's stop developer (victim) blaming for soulless billion dollar companies restricting API access.
Part of the reason why API access is desirable is because it forms an effective safeguard against some forms of company abuse. To argue that we can only have API access if nobody uses it for adversarial interoperability or to build 3rd-party clients or to bypass systems -- we might as well argue against API access entirely if that's going to be our position. The point of API access is to be able to use it.