veniasilente

I can get that they'd not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?

From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.

There's a difference between the performer's time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user's time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I'm pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.

Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I'm actually paying for something to be made.

Unfortunately, corporations are really the closest proxy we really have.

[citation needed]

The closest thing we have to "representation proxy to a community of people who helped author a thing" is an author's guild, for example. And things like the Writers' Guild already exist, I'm sure there's a Drawers' Guild too. Not as close, but more solidly defined, would be a union, oh guess what? We have those, too.

In comparison, a "corporation" has a whole lotta fat.

Corporations don't need you to shill for them.

Nani?

If what you care about is the abstract idea that the idea of something can be owned, whether the book is in the library or in my pocket doesn't change the fact that the idea of the book is by the author. I can move the book wherever - across even national borders if I want to - and that "intrinsic value" doesn't change.

True. Browsers are so damn complex these days!

Completely off-topic but I recall a lawyers TV show back in the day where the response to this joke was something like:

"About at the same time you stopped beating yours"

Which would have been interesting to see how that would have worked at the court. Can't remember the show alas, but it was probably The Practice (a late 90s show I think, predecessor to Boston Legal).

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to others, which I should have done beforehand. Admittedly when I wrote that post I was thinking of the term "tenacious" which means something completely different, and that distracted me from noticing I was using a perhaps obscure word.

Your adroit incorporation of "adroit " reminds me of mine own erewhile efforts to incorporate "adroit" into my poetical experimentations, which I hope resulted in an execution considered adroit back in the time.

Grateful I am for your bringing of this memory of creation to me.

Serious question re the auth part:

Have you tried submitting PRs? Much of the complaints that I see about the development side of Firefox are grounded on the fac that "they won't have this cool thing that Chrome has", ignoring that those things are usually dangerous or are rejected for justified, studied reasons (see: WebUSB). Sounds just about the area where auth would have issues, and it'd be interesting to see what Firefox's actual response was.

Who knows, maybe they're cluing you that you shouldn't depending on Google...

I took the liberty of reading the article but I'm gonna say the title is quite... tendentious. Makes it sound like it's yet another one of those FUD / nutjob clickbait that have been coming at the privacy community for a few days with sensationalist titles such as "The CIA will stop funding Signal" (never has been) or "FBI wants to sell Wikipedia" (never has been).

What is going on?

EDIT: Cosmic Cleric has provided the definition of "tendentious", which I have linked.

To be fair something like the dialer or the gallery or the notes, you can just sticky the current version you have. It's unlikely to ever see major / important changes, I mean all the dialer has to do is to dial numbers, right=