Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

github.com

271–280 of 307 posts

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#271
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be hard-pressed today to find computers with less than 8 GB of RAM. 300 MB is 3.66% of 8 GB of RAM. Which, again, is absolutely nothing. Okay, let's assume you have a computer with 4 GB of RAM. Still 7.32%. That is low.

Except 8 GB of ram is really more like 3 because Windows uses 5 to do nothing. And then Chrome uses a couple more gigs. And then Lord have mercy if you have outlook. So that's, like, two programs open and were already running out of memory.

I've just booted a fresh install of Win11 in Azure and it's sitting at 2.8GB with 2GB in the cache. Not all that bad.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why TOS violations in general are unethical?

If you enter into an agreement with someone you should follow the agreement to the best of your ability. Purposefully agreeing to agreements when you know you will violate them is exploitative behavior as you are taking advantage of someone because you are purposefully not holding up your end of the deal when you know that they will continue to hold up their end.

You'd be correct if all of these contracts weren't essentially contracts of adhesion. The fact that the user has no agency to change the terms of the contract or really any say at all in what the terms of the agreement are waters down your argument significantly. In fact, the contracts are so asymmetrical that only one party has control over them and can change them at any time. The other party has no agency whatsoever.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#273
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's being "pro-copyright" and then there's just the topic of paying artists, and then choosing not to pay them. Which sometimes is bizarrely and belligerently defended like some moral stance (barely even in relation to copyright/piracy), and sometimes bubbles up like tools that not just avoid paying artists, but make it harder to pay artists, even when those artists have something set up that's a far cry from ad…

So I assume you give money to every single beggar artist that is playing in the street, metro, etc, right?

> beggar artist that is playing in the street

They are called "buskers". I disagree that buskers are beggars given that they are trying to earn money by providing entertainment.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#274
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's being "pro-copyright" and then there's just the topic of paying artists, and then choosing not to pay them. Which sometimes is bizarrely and belligerently defended like some moral stance (barely even in relation to copyright/piracy), and sometimes bubbles up like tools that not just avoid paying artists, but make it harder to pay artists, even when those artists have something set up that's a far cry from ad…

So I assume you give money to every single beggar artist that is playing in the street, metro, etc, right?

It's not about choosing which artists you like and whether you want to give money to some particular artist or not, and not even just personally refusing to give money to any artist.

It's about going out of your way to create something that gets in the way of artists getting paid, such as obscuring/eliminating an option to buy music or give money to an artist, not just from yourself alone but from other people, who might not even have such a stance, or even realize that there has been an anti-artist decision made for them.

Not even adblockers go this far, because they just remove third party ads, and artists are still free to promote their stuff in other ways (for example, on youtube, there's still stuff in description, annotations, things inside the video, etc.). A player like this removes those options from artists completely.

It's also like, not even that different on bandcamp - you can just listen to some music there and move on without buying it. Removing an option to buy an album is kind of different. Imagine if ad blocker did that to a bandcamp webpage, that would be absurd. (bandcamp doesn't even have ads though. well, depending on what you consider "advertising or promotion", maybe the whole website looks like endless promo to you, if that's the way someone looks at entertainment)

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#275
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't testimonials. Couldn't be. Nobody would put mostly negative comments on their page like that. Some aren't remotely positive in any way (not even in a "hahaha, fuck the artists, get music for free" way). Maybe they're coming from a comment feed somewhere?

I am very certain this is intentional. Sorta "look how much we don't care" bravado.

Why would they not care if people were saying that the product itself was complete trash

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#276
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists making a living will in no way be impacted by the use of this software. The only way for artists to make a living through their art would be changes through IP/copyright reform (politics and policy, which will take years if not decades ) and the operation of platforms where they can get a more fair share of compensation [1] [2]. One can think a musician's response to this software is absurd and still believe…

One can be angry for symbolic reasons as well. If your CEO told you to "Get your code on github, it is free", you would probably rightfully question whether they understood the reasons why people develope and maintain open source software in the first place. Similarly here. It is not about the act of people listening to the music for free. If this was a problem, a musician would just restrict access to those tracks.…

> Technically correct, but ethically wrong

Ethically wrong to watch a street performer but not toss a coin? I do agree that it is ethically virtuous to toss the coin, but ethically wrong not to? I'm not seeing it.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not running 10 Electron apps that are trivial. They tend to be actual functional applications. And we're talking about memory usage here. Nothing is stuttering from not enough memory if they're only using 12.5%.

12.5% is just the ram. We’re not even talking about excessive cpu cycles for browser animations yet. That’ll get you stuttering.

Right, the subject is the RAM. Not CPU.

But who has 10 applications all showing animations at the same time? Or constantly animating at all? If a button animates when you click it, or a message animates when it pops up, it's not exactly slowing down my system.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People listening to music for free is less than a drop of water in the ocean of causative reasons musicians get fucked. Astonishingly ignorant hot take. Music is what MUSICIANS DO. Some of them are also performers, many are not. What they create is the same as what a painter does, or even a chef or architect. However it is not a physical good so people with tiny brains think that means "iT's FreEEe!!1!" when each m…

I think you're misunderstanding the point GP was trying to make. Artists and musicians in particular seem to think that copyright is their friend. Because, in theory, it's a mechanism by which a revenue stream could appear when you produce artwork. But copyright is not the musician's friend at all. It's a mechanism by which record labels consolidate power as the middlemen and route revenue to their executives with ve…

That's a pretty nice fundamental law. Explains the rot that occurs with land ownership as well. Really, stopping wealth accretion via non-action would probably help with some of the nastier outcomes of a regulated market economy. I suppose it's probably too late for us, however. Revolution, ahoy!

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#279
post #62
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really a meme is: " I got 32 GB of RAM, who cares? " I see a parallel with networked services being developed and tested under "works for me" lab conditions without latency, jitter, or reduced bandwidth. "It works fine on my 10 Gbps network, who cares about 2 extra MB of Javascript?" For one, because the very moment you have that line of thought, you're probably already an outlier.

You would be hard-pressed today to find computers with less than 8 GB of RAM. 300 MB is 3.66% of 8 GB of RAM. Which, again, is absolutely nothing. Okay, let's assume you have a computer with 4 GB of RAM. Still 7.32%. That is low.

This might sound contradictory, but I agree with you. 300 MB is nothing!

Problem is, when the music player takes 500 (let's be honest those 300 were probably just a cold-start and before actually doing anything with it), the collaboration chat app takes another 650 MB (Slack right now for me), the profile loader I need for work is another 400. The text editor is 510 MB (VSCode, and still that is a well engineered and optimized Electron marble). The Pomodoro timer, 300 MB.

And on top of that I'm supposed to do my actual work! All that junk is stealing memory that should be available to Visual Studio and compiling my huge code base.

Hopefully we don't end up with Electron calculators, calendars, email clients, file browsers, and image editors, because those things also tend to be open long term in my desktop (which right now I can do without any second thought about being able to, because they are all properly done as decently optimized GUIs)

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#280
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be hard-pressed today to find computers with less than 8 GB of RAM. 300 MB is 3.66% of 8 GB of RAM. Which, again, is absolutely nothing. Okay, let's assume you have a computer with 4 GB of RAM. Still 7.32%. That is low.

This attitude is dumb, people don't just have one thing open on their machine at a time. If you're designing software like a music player (that is, something people are likely to want to keep running in the background while doing other things), you're just giving people a reason to switch to something else by taking up a bunch of memory carelessly, as it'll be one of the first things to go when the user needs the mem…

Definitely it has become a selection criteria when picking tools. Electron? I don't care what a developer uses, nor how fun it was to use. I care about end results.

But to be fair. An Open Source project done in someone's free time for the love of it and shared freely in the wild as a humble contribution to humanity for the price tag of a Like in a forum, really should use whatever the author feels like using, as long as they don't treat it as a product and attempt to market it like it was done with care for anything but the developer's ergonomy. For what is worth, it could be made of Minecraft Redstone if the author feels like it, and nobody can judge them for it.

Post reply on HN