whofearsthenight

I don't mind much paying for streaming (although that's increasingly more and more annoying and I still tend to just download whatever I actually care about) but until and unless I can pay to "own" a movie and they just provide me with a DRM free video file of some sort, I will never "purchase" digital content like this.

If you tried this kind of bullshit in just about any other context, even normal people would think you're crazy.

Normal Person: "hi there, one blender please. I'll take this one for $25."
Sales person: "Cool here's your receipt."
NP:: "It says here at the bottom of the receipt that you can just come in my house and take this blender back whenever you want or maybe never?"
SP: "yep."
NP:: "And you don't tell people that ahead of time?"
SP: "no when you buy it you agree to that by opening the box and it is on the receipt you get after you bought it."
NP: "you fuckin with me rn?"
SP: "afraid not, and would you look at that corp says I need that blender back, thanks."
SP: "oh, shoot. I see here you also bought a toaster from EvilCorp sold in one of our EvilMart locations a couple years ago, we've decided to license that brand instead to our new partners FukUMart, so we'll be taking that toaster but if you want you can head to your local FukUMart and buy that toaster again for more than you paid the first time."
NP: spontaneously combusts

Just for clarities sake, there is one big sticking point here that I want to make clear. Pay, hours, etc cannot incentivize a fix to this system because it's not about attracting good people or bad people or dumb people or smart people, it's about the system. If cops made $120k starting with 5 weeks of vacation and only had to work 32 hour weeks, we would not see significantly different outcomes because it is simply the institution and systems and culture that are the problem. Honestly, that would probably only increase the problem since it just further removes police from the normal humans they're policing. Probably also instead of attracting people that are mission driven, it attracts mercenaries, basically. This is how we get billionaires; they're mostly not evil, just so far removed reality and doing one of the most human things possible – rationalizing our own behavior for our benefit.

The idea that there are purely good or purely bad people is mostly a myth. There are people that we could objectively define as purely good or purely evil, but they're the outlier. Nazis for example. The truth is even scarier than the myth. In most of our depictions, nazis are homogenous blob of pure evil. While nazi's certainly had some purely evil people, the truth is the vast majority were just average people exposed to a system that creates an evil outcome. Of course, there were also purely good people in that as well, but the system often led those people their graves, or they had to be the right combination of good/smart to resist and stay alive. But most people just participated or closed their eyes and went about their day.

The problem is not the people, it is the system and pay and benefits aren't going to fix it.

Now all that said, the Uvalde cops clearly over-index on little tiny dick bitch ass cowards and kinda blow a hole in my thesis. I wouldn't call them evil, but just speaking statistically you would think even one of them out of the scores of cops there would have had even an underdeveloped backbone. The cowardice shown here should be something that lives into myth and legend and the way people say "Benedict Arnold" to mean "traitor" they should say "Uvalde cop" to mean "coward."

Indeed is reporting that the average starting salary is like $50k, and the average in the US is $60k. Policing also isn't even in the top 25 most dangerous jobs. That link is also talking base salary, but even in the situation you're describing, you're talking overtime in the $20k+ range.

The problem with bad cops comes down to two main things:

• they're not here for public safety or here to protect and serve, they're here to protect capital.
• well, it's really just the first one, but keeping that in mind, the system is setup in a way that the only outcome can be a corrupt police force. Legal civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, overly powered police unions (the only time I'll complain about unions), deliberately low standards in hiring, deliberately not require the police to even know the law they're supposed to enforce and probably a dozen things I'm forgetting. Police aren't there for us, they're there for capital.

Finally, police funding and increasing the number of cops has almost nothing to do with crime rates which is what calls to defund the police actually mean. Police are basically systematized violence where pretty much the only tools in their literal and metaphorical toolbelt are increasing levels of violence. The call to defund the police is more about funding the things that actually reduce crime – better education, economic outcomes, and people trained to deal with the types of issues that police are probably less qualified to deal with than the average retail worker like mental health crises. Advocates for defunding the police are instead advocating for spending to be allocated to people who are qualified to actually deal with these problems.

Anyway, tl;dr – if we offer cops better pay and better hours, we're just going to be getting more expensive cops stealing our shit, incarcerating us at one of the highest rates in the world, and murdering people with less consequence than the cashier at Target gets for not upselling credit cards enough because while plenty of good people* become cops, policing as an institution in the US is corrupt.

* "Good" people and "bad" people are mostly a result of the systems and culture they exist in and very few are truly "good" or "bad."

I mean, I'm not sure why this conversation even needs to get this far. If I write an article about the history of Disney movies, and make it very clear the way I got all of those movies was to pirate them, this conversation is over pretty quick. OpenAI and most of the LLMs aren't doing anything different. The Times isn't Wikipedia, most of their stuff is behind a paywall with pretty clear terms of service and nothing entitles OpenAI to that content. OpenAI's argument is "well, we're pirating everything so it's okay." The output honestly seems irrelevant to me, they never should have had the content to begin with.

I still have more subs for these than I would like, but I generally download anything I actually want to watch anyway. Like, the fact that justwatch.com even exists is an indictment of the way this works.

This is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of anything related to monopoly or anti-trust law. Maybe, maybe the iPhone, and even then it's a stretch. edit: at least in the US.

The only thing that I think is a little complicated these days is make sure that you're not reliant on a particular Windows-only app. For the vast majority of common apps, you're going to be fine, and it's sounding more and more like even gaming on Linux is not only fine, but getting to the point of being the best way to do it. If you do have a particular app you rely on, I'd look into the various ways that you can get Windows apps running on Linux (which can be a little tricky, but usually not too bad.) But even like 10 years ago, I built a machine for an elderly family member, put probably some flavor of ubuntu on it, and I never had to troubleshoot that machine.

Android phones from major manufacturers, and Apple phones: doubt it.

Bold added for emphasis, Apple claims privacy as a feature and OS control of the mic to prevent this exact sort of thing. Not only would someone have found it, it would be a news cycle on the mainstream news, and basically just the wallpaper for any tech-centric website.

I mean, fucks sake, iFixIt alone would find mics in places they shouldn't be and this would be a story.

Unfortunately, the truth is more boring, and basically pretty much every app/website most of us use are tracking us in some way unless you really seek prevention. They don't need the mic.

“if I were a corporate shitbag, how would I implement my shitbaggery?”

In this case, it would be pretty hard. We have wiretap laws, which would mean you have to tell the user you're doing this. Even though no one reads the ToS, someone does, and it would be news if someone was doing this.

Even then, it would be a hard enough problem that companies would think twice about it for a few reasons. Number one, processing 24/7 of all audio in your home is going to be rather difficult/expensive, so you'd have to go with something like keyword-triggers-processing the way that your phone listens for "hey google/siri" or Amazon listens for "Alexa." It works kinda like game video sharing - they are always listening and recording for a short time frame* but they only send the data somewhere if they hear the trigger phrase. That's not easy in itself, they've spent a ton of time getting the right algorithm so that it correctly hears the right trigger phrase and you don't get a ton of false positives to varying degrees of success. And keeping in mind these are companies that are best suited to it, they still struggle sometimes with even that. The ad companies would have to listen for dozens/hundreds/thousands of triggers...

And then you get to the data retention policies. Google is an ad company, Apple is not. One of the reasons that Apple can tout privacy as a feature is simply that they don't need the data, so they don't collect nearly as much, and they save even less. They get the bonus of not dealing with law enforcement and all that.

So, assuming they solve that, solve some big issues with the laws of the land and physics, now we're to the point where they have to think about network traffic. Which is going to be trivially easy for nerds to figure out and circumvent, so they would have to have their own ad-hoc network which comes with another 137 or so difficulties.

If it were, it would be pretty common knowledge and there would be several news cycles about it. I don't doubt that they could bury it in the terms of service, but we have wiretap laws in enough places that are two-party consent that it would have had to come out by now. Not to mention nerds like me running pi-hole and monitoring their traffic, repair people who could easily regonize a mic in the device, etc.

Piracy is not even close to the reason any of the streamers are struggling, and even then I'd be surprised to see if Amazon was actually struggling. Piracy itself is a rounding error, and is more of a function of the shitty way that most of the streamers run their business.

There is a lot going on:

Lots of these streamers, and especially Amazon, keep green lighting projects with massive budgets but then forgetting to tell a good story or hire people who seem interested in making the show they're making. Rings of Power and Wheel of Time have insane budgets for what are generously mediocre shows. I can't even imagine the pitch meeting for WoT. "I want to take a massively beloved cornerstone of the fantasy genre that spans 14 gigantic books and a few novellas, turn it into a TV show with 8 ep seasons, make a ton of changes to the story and lore that is sure to piss off the audience that is most likely to generate word of mouth for us, and for the low, low price of like a billion dollars. You should trust me with this money because I worked on 2 seasons of the hit show (that was on the edge of cancellation basically it's entire run) Agents of SHIELD and a streaming show on Netflix that was canceled after one season." By pretty much any measure, this is an insane set of decisions.

This is everywhere - The Witcher, Halo, Star Trek: Discovery (and most of Picard), Secret Invasion, Book of Boba Fett, just about every goddamn "blockbuster" Netflix attempts. It's either they take a beloved IP and decide to do something entirely different and usually not even good-different (has anyone that worked on Halo even seen an xbox?) or they set up a project with a pitch like "Ryan Reynolds is a big star, Fast and the Furious is a big franchise, make a movie with Ryan and cars or whatever." Insert meme of the guy getting thrown out of the window for asking "does it need a plot?"

The existence of half of these streamers in general belie the real issues. You can't tell me that Paramount+ or Peacock should even exist. The whole premise of these goddamn things is "people want to watch 20-40 year old re-runs of Star Trek and Seinfeld, I bet we can charge $15 in perpetuity for that as long as we sprinkle in the occasional new show that makes a point to let our audience know we hate them for liking these shows."

It's just a massively, massively mismanaged business on basically every level. Ads is the latest in this fiasco. They should be either small, cheap networks that make a lot of small budget shows, or if they're going to take some big swings they might want to have a proven strategy of any sort. Quite a lot of the shows that found massive success were made for basically the change you find in the couch cushions. A show like Friends probably cost about $7 for the first season, and didn't balloon until later seasons when the cast was each making a decent amount and every other episode had a major guest star. Most sci-fi until very recently was extremely cheap. Carter: Sir, we've arrived on the planet, looks like the MALP was accurate. O'Neill: It's really weird how most of the planets we visit look like the woods in Vancouver, BC. Even Game of Thrones which probably started this arms race of spending, didn't start getting $20+ million budgets until it was a massive, massive hit (worth noting how that show tried to stick closely to the source and didn't start to suck until they ran out of book) and even then that would be seen as "cheap" compared to a lot of these.

streaming has absolutely no future.

Streaming isn't going anywhere, and if anything will likely continue to grow for as cable dies off. It's just going to consolidate and get shittier (ads) as basically things move back to a model more cable-like. Piracy will probably ramp back to like levels for music in the early 2000's, but it will remain a niche. Amazon specifically will see blowback for this, but it's unlikely to move many off of Prime since it's sort of a tertiary benefit to having a Prime membership, and even if it's all you got for your Prime membership, it's still one of the cheapest streaming services.