Normal cities forego the revenue for themselves when they close parking spaces, so it's never free. If they payed those fees out of the billion dollars in advance revenue they got at the start of the contract, it wouldn't seem so bad. Perhaps the real problem is how they spent that money too quickly.
I'm surprised at people who can't imagine what's theoretically possible. I always assumed someone could identify my location from a photo if they tried hard enough, even many decades ago before I'd heard of geoguessing or AI. It's just obvious that there's usually enough information in a photo to do that. Even for a grassy field.
There's a simple solution - don't publish your private information. That's how to use the internet 101. If you already did, then maybe it wasn't a very important secret anyway.
Those 18 bytes aren't the binary, they're just the command to call the program. Don't count it just as you wouldn't count the length of the filename and its arguments for a regular executable.
If you insist on categorizing `echo "hello world"` as the invocation, rather than the program, then what is the program under your categorization? I'll submit that it is the `echo` binary, which is a whopping 35kB on my machine.
I'll just observe that there is no way to compress "hello world" below a certain size (definitely not to size 0). If you think you have, you've just "moved" it into, say, the framework/os/input/algorithm/etc.
But this fun little debate we're having here is actually connected to some deep theoretical questions, like Kolmogorov complexity, its invariance theorem, and applications to the concept of data compression [0].
Before he was a right to repair activist, he was a complaining-about-Apple-making-life-difficult-for-independent-repairmen Youtuber, and before that, he was a showing people how he repairs computers Youtuber. He didn't just appear overnight to be an influencer.
With some of these controversial topics, there always seem to be people who prefer disinformation over truth for the reason that the general public can't be trusted with the truth since it might motivate them to do bad things.
The question then is, does it apply to yourself, or are you special? What knowledge motivates you to do bad things? Do you wish that was hidden from you so you weren't such a harmful person?
You can detect it. You interview the student about their paper. If they don't know or understand what they wrote, then either they cheated or they may as well have cheated because they didn't learn anything. If you have enough money (they do), make the interview part of the assessment for all students.
Yes. There's a power imbalance without accountability. Of course they're going to abuse it. This professor and his university are both clearly incompetent. Students shouldn't even have to defend themselves against a cheating accusation. Either prove it or assume it didn't happen.
I used to be a teacher and even when I strongly suspected a student of cheating, if I couldn't prove it, I wouldn't even mention it to them or anyone else. Weak evidence doesn't mean partial guilt.
I experienced that and enjoyed electronics because I had far more power to create physical things that I found exciting. If you're into making gadgets and machines and robots and all that, computers weren't enough on their own or even any use at all.
Nowadays, it's a bit murkier because you can use single board computers with pre-made modules for interfacing with the real world and assemble a gadget with almost no application of electronics knowledge and mostly just software.
It might have helped that I didn't have any of the latest computers and electronics in the 80s so it was empowering to see that I could make things at a similar level of technology to the old 2nd hand and cheap commercial products I had around. I remember being very disappointed with digital watches because they were so opaque having an inaccessible COB blob doing all the interesting work.
I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but copyright lasting beyond the death of the author is important so that near-death authors can still sell their work. It would be near-worthless to a buyer/publisher/etc. if it was about to enter public domain. Imagine the headline "Famous artist diagnosed with terminal cancer - suddenly can't sell her work to fund her treatment."
This is why the lifetime of the creator should have nothing to do with copyright terms. All works get a fixed term of 20, 30, whatever years, if the creator dies before that term the rights can be transferred via their estate.
That doesn't just apply to people very close to death. If copyright ended right on death, the the work of someone in their 20's would have twice as long to earn revenue as the work of someone in their 50's. The former's work would still be covered when nostalgia bump came, while the later's work would not. This would create significant financial incentives for publishers/labels/etc to pick up younger artists instead of older ones, in markets that are already skewed towards younger people.
Fixed term makes so much more sense. We should have never signed the Berne Convention.
You could do like 50 years or death of author, whichever comes 2nd. Then an author knows they own their work for life no matter what, but an author near working death still has something to pass on.
This feels very similar to the "think about the children" lines when people want to keep their privacy online. It's stupidly specific, and if you have to twist this far to find an example, I think you have nothing.
David Bowie died two days after his final album was released. Are the people who worked on it, put it out, somehow less entitled to make money because he died?
It doesn't feel overly specific when the topic is copyright after death to think about how people die.
There's two solutions here, either they are co-creators and then all the creators aren't dead or they aren't and they were never going to receive additional revenue beyond their work anyway.
Either way, that's not working as an argument against stopping copyright when the authors are dead.
There's a publisher, who did boring things like pay the cover artist, buy the plastic and vinyl, pay the printer. The record came out, they had a bunch of copies, and then two days later Bowie died. If they're exclusive right to sell they music disappears, they overpaid Bowie.
The cost of publishing a music online after it's been produced is close to zero nowadays. I could see how that argument was relevant 30 years ago though.
And the initial costs are similar to any other non-copyright related work, paid per service.
Because the costs to publish online are zero there would be innumerable other copies of the work posted, meaning the initial outlay for the studio time etc cannot be recouped.
Yep! The costs to press vinyl and print sleeves and market the work _are_ paid upfront. So cutting off the revenue stream unexpectedly means no more expensive projects for old artists
I don't think its _stupidly_ specific to point out that people should still be able to sell things when nearing death. But 10/15 years should be more than enough. The amount of years is beyond parody at this point.
But it's a plausible situation (terminal/severe illnesses are not that rare) and a relevant argument against the "expire on death" copyright proposal. Laws often need to deal with "stupidly specific" cases because they do happen in the real world.
