polonius-rex

@polonius-rex@kbin.run

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

polonius-rex ,

if copyright wasn't a thing, disney would just re-publish everything any independent artist ever made as their own, and then probably use their unfathomable leverage to bully any platform hosting the original artist's work into not doing so

polonius-rex ,

If copyright goes, it's a free-for-all. Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.

Yes, disney abuses their leverage in the current system, but they'd abuse their leverage in any system. And them abusing their leverage in a system without copyright is significantly worse for independent artists than them abusing their leverage in a system with it.

polonius-rex , (edited )

Why do you think extending copyright past the life of the author helps the author? They're literally dead.

The only party that could benefit from something like that would be a corporation that can outlast a mortal's lifespan.

polonius-rex ,

they would fight for it instead of fighting to stop it

Your argument is that Disney expanding copyright protections proves that copyright benefits them.

But Disney isn't expanding copyright protections in a way that benefits anybody but themselves. They're abusing their power in the existing system, just as they would in any system.

If it helps, forget about the literal Disney corporation. There will always be some corporation that exists with deeper pockets than any independent creator, because copyright isn't the only reason that corporations exist. It doesn't have to be Disney who steals your work, republishes it, and buries the original. Any corporation with more money than scruples can do it.

polonius-rex ,

You publish a book. Disney publishes that book the next day, because they can afford to have people on payroll whose job it is to literally just scout out new books so that they can publish them themselves.

Me, a book enjoyer, is going to my local bookshop. I ask what's new, and I'm told about Disney's new book. I'm not told about your new book because after all it is the exact same book, and Disney has threatened the store to withdraw all business if they sell anybody's books but theirs.

I buy Disney's book. You get no money. You become poor and destitute.

How does a lack of copyright help you in this instance?

polonius-rex ,

As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

Why would the artist get an explosion of exposure when Disney's edition of the book was significantly more widely publicised, so everybody who might be interested in it already bought it from Disney.

The literal best case scenario here is that you have equal marketing, in which case Disney gets 50% of the sales and you get 50% of the sales. In what world is cutting your potential revenue in half a win for creators?

polonius-rex ,

Because you invested your time, effort and money to create this piece of art. Why on earth would anybody decide to create art if it was a guarantee that they'd die in a gutter?

In your anarchist utopia, maybe an artist can thrive. But we'd have to get all the way there first.

And in every step from where we are to where you want to get to, the artist is significantly worse off. You're just letting perfect be the enemy of good.

polonius-rex ,

because you can afford to because you already have a way to support yourself in society

also, not all creatives are idealists, so would need some form of incentive to put in the extra effort to release their work to the public

polonius-rex ,

Public domain because the authors are long-dead. You can't steal sales from a corpse.

polonius-rex ,

you're comparing disney re-using work in a manner that directly competes with its living author with them re-using work of somebody who's dead

disney abuses the current system by pushing for copyright extensions because disney would abuse literally any system

disney's abuse of a no-copyright system would be significantly worse than disney's abuse of this copyright system

polonius-rex ,

you're now sitting here justifying paying artists in exposure?

to dampen Disney sales

disney doesn't avoid breaching copyright in our world because of the threat of being found out. they avoid breaching copyright because they'd be sued.

polonius-rex ,

i think the gun people might be voting for trump

polonius-rex ,

sure, but they're in the minority, and i wouldn't bet on even the majority to win against the national guard and their tanks

polonius-rex ,

Okay? What's your point? That the national guard will rise up against the system?

The national guard are famously conservative. Which side do you think they'll pick when push comes to shove?

polonius-rex ,

in the real military yeah

but usually the national guard are made up of people who wanted a "military" career without the risk

fortunate sons and all that

Trump Used "Palestinian" as a Slur. Biden and Debate Moderators Didn’t Say a Word. ( theintercept.com )

Much of the attention on Thursday’s presidential debate fell upon President Joe Biden’s faltering performance, which has called into question whether he can even remain the Democratic candidate. In the aftermath, some have focused on former President Donald Trump’s nonstop lies....

polonius-rex ,

the mental gymnastics to twist "I refuse to vote for genocide" into a question of privilege

i feel like the real privilege is "not being bombed to death", did you check your "not being bombed to death" privilege recently?

some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election

in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?

polonius-rex ,

the absolute clown show of starting off talking about privilege, and finishing off talking about how those without it don't know how to vote properly because they don't agree with you

in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?

polonius-rex ,

sorry are we talking about my vote now, or the people who you pretended to care about a minute ago?

in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?

polonius-rex ,

The people I care about being... me

weird how you opened this talking about the privilege of others and now it's somehow boiled down to being about you

and the rest of the vulnerable demographics in the US

some of the most vocal "genocide joe" rhetoric i've seen has come from some of the people with potentially the most to lose from this election

 

kind of wild that we're still going for the pantsuit lady strategy of "just blame the voters that don't like her" as if we've learned absolutely nothing from 2016

i guess if we just intentionally misrepresent criticism of biden then said critics will be forced to vote for him

let me know how that works out, i guess

 

in either case, the ground is rapidly shrinking under biden's feet. tolerate him or not, surely at this point you have to confront the very realistic possibility that he's not going to win?

polonius-rex ,

Gmaps in unbeatable for public transportation

citymapper

polonius-rex ,

the tank is confused by its own reflection and attempts to fight itself

polonius-rex ,

i'll take 8 levels in wizard and 2 in pmc contractor

polonius-rex ,

why are people in this thread acting as if he's just admitted to ordering hits on whistleblowers

polonius-rex ,

fascists hate all art [...] that doesn't hew to their narrow prejudices

polonius-rex ,

start taking off when you read the crossword

polonius-rex ,

And the boogaloo part

The boogaloo movement, whose adherents are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois,[3] is a loosely organized far-right anti-government extremist movement in the United States.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It has also been described as a militia.[10][11][12] Adherents say they are preparing for, or seek to incite, a second American Civil War or second American Revolution which they call "the boogaloo" or "the boog".[13][14]

polonius-rex ,

if you are ever asked to sign an NDA that says you can't cooperate with law enforcement

i don't think this is even enforceable

an nda is enforced by the justice system it's not going to enforce it against itself

polonius-rex ,

never play poker with that patient

polonius-rex ,

if you don't even roll, then you're robbing your players from the feeling of a near miss

also taken to its extreme, your players will probably just work out that they aren't going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn't

and yeah, at that point you can punish them, but you've been responsible for them getting to that state in the first place, so you're essentially punishing them for your own mistakes

polonius-rex , (edited )

okay then, for you the game ends here:

your players will probably just work out that they aren't going to die at all and start taking stupid risks that they shouldn't

you can't just not metagame

if you know a choice will result in a certain outcome, you can no longer make that decision neutrally

in fact, you literally can't take a risk when you know what the outcome of a choice is, because there's no risk to take

not even bothering to roll is barely a step removed from just telling your players "i'm not going to make the enemy roll to hit you because then you might die and you haven't found your long lost brother yet", and if you can't see that that's a garbage scenario for roleplaying i don't know what to tell you

polonius-rex ,

I may discard the result and go with the gut feeling

this is fudging rolls

polonius-rex ,

But if you're a thief and want to open a simple lock and nobody's is trying to defenestrate you at the moment? No need to roll, failure is meaningless. You just killed a dragon? No need to persuade the king to help you.

this conversation is specifically talking about when you're in a scenario where you logically need to make a roll, but where a bad roll coming up essentially ruins things for both the gm and players

polonius-rex ,

a band aid to poor planning

you think you can plan around your players' actions?

polonius-rex ,

Fudging rolls means stating the result of a secret roll was different than it was in reality

which is what you're doing when you ignore it...? otherwise you wouldn't be ignoring it

polonius-rex , (edited )

it has the meaning you assigned to it before rolling it, whether or not you're pulling that meaning from a specific table, and whether or not you reveal the system to the players

if you decide ahead of time that a low result is going to be a tough encounter, and a high result is going to be a pile of treasure, then it comes up low and you decide to ignore that and give them treasure instead based on your gut feeling, you're fudging the roll

if you decide what's going to happen next based on your pull from a tarot deck, and somehow get "death" four times in a row, anything less than a disaster scenario is fudging the roll

it's the exact same instinct that leads to "hmm, maybe this piss shit little goblin shouldn't decapitate the barbarian in one hit because it happened to roll well"

polonius-rex ,

sometimes allowing an outcome that should mechanically via the rules of the game and logically via the rules of common sense has more downsides than upsides

it doesn't have to refer to exclusively player death

polonius-rex ,

it was both

it used to be two screenshots of books, one of which was blurred as fuck, and one of which was usually pretty easy

the easy one was to verify that you were a human, and the blurry one was to train ai

now that they've moved on to "select all the fire hydrants" or whatever, you can still see a distinction between the ones the system knows and the ones the system doesn't know, and if you get good enough at spotting it, you can pass the captcha while feeding it deliberately incorrect information

similarly, the audio test will normally be a short phrase, the first half of which is harder to understand; if you get the second part of it right, you can basically write whatever you want for the first part

 

also, i'm not sure security theater really exists as a concept in cybersecurity, because the psychology isn't really the same

bad actors will always be able to just hire people in meatspace to solve whatever shibboleth you throw at them, which is pennies per solve

however, pennies per request is still a cost orders of magnitude higher than what each request would cost otherwise, so the hope is it pushes whatever scam or whatever you're running into the territory of unprofitability

polonius-rex ,

using the correct term makes it more clear that the difference is in average overall earning, not in the pay received per hour of the same work

no there's still a gap per-hour for the same work

more and more of the gap is accounted for via factors that have nothing to do with discrimination/prejudice/etc

wow this is news to me i can't wait to see the explanations

  1. Fields dominated by men happen to pay more? Why?
  2. Why are men socially in a position where they can choose these higher risk occupations?
  3. Construction, oil field workers, logging all seem to have a pretty bad reputation for hostile work environments for women, no? For fishing, see 4.
  4. Why are men more often in positions where this is possible? What gender difference could there possibly be that could make this the case? What sexual dimorphism has led to this difference? What social expectations have we placed upon women that would lead to this? Personally I haven't a clue.
  5. Why are men expected to be the breadwinner?
  6. Why would higher risks lead to a higher median salary? Also, why are men more likely to take risks?
  7. See 4
  8. See 1
  9. Why?
  10. See 7
  11. See 8, 10
  12. See 10
  13. See 12
  14. See 13
  15. See 14
  16. See 15
  17. Why are men more able to relocate than women?
  18. See 16
  19. See 6
  20. Sounds like this is a consequence of being able to work longer hours, in which case, see 18
polonius-rex ,

The remaining gap is smaller than the margin of error, once you account for every known factor.

no, it isn't

it'd be absurdly impractical otherwise (no one is going to be examining the individual daily acts of all these people at their jobs),

you know, other than like researchers

You have cause and effect backwards. The fields pay more first, then men are shown to gravitate more toward them

genuinely very funny that you just wrote over 200 words to restate your original very bad arguments

this is circular af

This is a loaded question. Men aren't any more "socially in a position" to do so than women.

sorry i made the critical error of "assuming you had an actual point to make"

unless you're actually out here trying to make a case that FEEEEMAALEESS are just genetically predisposed to being scared of making money

Okay, really now, let's not pretend there are these throngs of women clamoring to be 'let in' to the roofing industry

you're right the second x chromosome makes them completely incapable of laying tiles upon other tiles

genuinely what point do you think you're making?

are you actually unironically trying to claim that there aren't incredibly real social barriers to entry for women trying to get into the construction industry, for example?

Left to make a free choice, men are simply more likely to risk their safety and lives for a bigger paycheck, than women are

wow super weird that the gender class that isn't expected to care for the next generation for 15-18 years is treated as more sacrificial i wonder how that could have happened i guess science will never know

In fact, the data has shown that the more egalitarian a society is re sex equality, the more pronounced those differences become

i don't really have anything to say here other than the fact that this just straight up isn't true

a lot easier to argue for a point when you're willing to just make shit up, i guess

no one will choose it over the safer option, obviously.

just casually ignoring the side of the risk where you die and make no money, i guess

i actually love that you think everybody can succeed in what is almost by definition the zero-sum game of venture capitalism it's very sweet

This is the 'working with things' vs. 'working with people' general preference difference between men and women, in action.

wow i can't wait to see the evidence that you provide to prove this is genetic and not social predisposition it will turn the field on its head

oh what's that? you don't have that evidence

WEIRD

Point 17 doesn't say men are more ABLE, it says they're more WILLING.

oh weird please could you link the study that sufficiently justifies men are more willing rather than more able to relocate?

polonius-rex , (edited )

Done with your ignorant "nuh uh" garbage

ah yes because you're backing up everything you say with sources, and not just spouting shit

this is the first time you've tried to cite something to back yourself up, and the thing you chose to cite agrees with me.

"most of the raw earnings differential": you know that "most" doesn't mean "all", right?

so what we have here is you saying something that's wrong, me telling you it's wrong, you proving to both of us that it's wrong, and then you complaining that i'm telling you it's wrong

I'm not going to entertain your "prove it's not" nonsense, that's not how it works

either you're utterly inept enough to get burden of proof completely ass-backwards, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it here because you're arguing in bad faith

obviously i wouldn't accuse you of being utterly inept because it would be rude so i would ask that you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the high standards set by the rest of your "wage gap is a myth" folks

to clarify: you're making the claim that women are genetically predisposed to behave in a certain way, so it's you who gets to back that up

Did you know that the earnings gap between men and women among the 8.7 million employees across 33 countries where it was measured is the smallest in the countries where women have the fewest rights/equality?

i'm pretty sure i know the exact study you're citing (well not citing, vaguely gesturing towards) which is why i'm so confident that it's nonsense

if it's the one i'm thinking of, they completely misuse a statistical indicator so badly that they literally invert the trend in their data

 

i'll make this really simple for you. you need to make a convincing case that either:

  • our social system doesn't typically expect the bulk of childcare to fall on women
  • the bulk of childcare falling on one parent over the other doesn't impact the amount of flexibility that parent has in their schedule

otherwise, we've just demonstrated systemic sexism present in the wage gap

(i know you won't reply to this because you know that you can't make that convincing case; this is more for the benefit of future viewers)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •