tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺

Result of gender stereotypes affecting the behaviour of female and male children, so male children grow up to be more encouraged to learn about technology and engage in risk taking behaviour.

Also inclination to risk taking behaviour is much higher in biological men than biological women, which would also give a potential reason why this advertisment works on women but not on men.

As always these attributions only represent the average of the women and men populations as a whole. Ofc. there is risk averse men and tech savvy women.

i thought he was munching it into shape so it would fit the floppy drive.

Legislators could just offer a very easy solution. They could simply mandate copyright holders to offer the copyright to all interested parties at a fair price. If content ist held back or only exclusively distributed through one party it should go public domain, as the holder of the rights clearly does not intend to profit in a legitimate way from.

The intend of copyright is to make sure, that the holder of the right can get a fair compensation. It is not the intend that his work is abused to manipulate the markets.

All we can do is 50k and some fruits in the office.

Because these cost relevant money.

Do you know why BMW proposed the subscription for the seat heating? Because it was cheaper to just build it in than to alter it repeatedely during production.

But the board computer will be the same. Communication devices will be the same. The backend servers at KIA will be the same and running services for each car anyway.

There is no relevant cost associated with it.

150$/year, so about 1500$ over thelifespan of a car is far beyond what it costs to implement and maintain these features. If everyone would pay it in the base price it would maybe cost 100$ in total. So already the people paying the base subscription are getting ripped off.

Then include it in the base price and be done with it. Why do they put it in subscription? To mask the actual price and through this pull off a massive price increase for the customer.

How is it different?

They programmed all the features. The technical systems are the same and all that is required for an unlock is them flipping a digital button. There is no real cost on their side to provide these features to non subscription customers too.

There is criminal, not civil courts, that were sucessfully drowned in the cum-ex robberies. They gave up on prosecuting people who stole billions from the federal budget, because they were unable to process the amount of files brought by the defense, before the statue of limitations expires.

So if even prosecuting theft of billions of Euros is subject to this tactic smaller civil cases can be too. And the court, because of their lack of technical understanding struggle to assess which files are relevant and which aren’t.

Yeah. This is going to be noticed in Tech blogs and news sites, but it wont make it to the mainstream news. Even if some mainstream newspaper might notice it and want to write a small article about it, they most likely will repeat the corporate response about some evil hacker messing with their product.

The problem is that it can still work in Germany to just pile the defendant under too many files to process with his ressources. This is not the case in stuff that courts understand, like say a traffic accident. But for anything technical/IT/IP related German courts are terribly incompetent and unable to create a fair case.

Especially regarding IP related things like streaming or torrenting movies, there is a myriad of ridiculous court decisions. The default unfortunately seems to be to just assume the corporation to be in the right, because it is a corporation and surely they must own the IP and lose a lot of money from the evil hackers.

Lets compare three options as example:

One streaming service with everything:

• monetary costs: 25 €/month
• opportunity cost: login, type name in search bar, enjoy in good quality, language and subtitles of choice

Piracy:

• monetary costs: 0-5 €/month (hardware/vpn)
• opportunity costs: keep up to date with existing aggregator sites, take protective measures against identification, be wary of malware, limited scope of languages and subtitles, varying quality

Current streaming services:

• monetary costs: 100 €/month or more, if you cover most services
• opportunity cost: login to each service, look if they have the particular series/movie, be limited by region to which languages and subtitles you can use, have only certain episodes or certain seasons of a series, get a movie as a result, but actually have to pay extra for lending it…

People choose whether to pay monetary or opportunity costs. For a broke student priacy might still be the way to go, because they have time but not money. For most people a convenient streaming service will be the way to go though, because not having to worry about everything around and just finding your movie/series in 30 seconds, after you put dinner in the plates is the preferred option.

The current situation combines high monetary costs with high opportunity costs, so that piracy becomes attractive to many people, who would be happy to pay for a streaming service, that actually covers everything.

So i think “almost always” is perfectly applicable. Also keep in mind, that the offer of pirated stuff is directly related to the demand. if the demand reduces, so will the offer, which in this case would make piracy even less convenient. Of course the pricing matters, and if the one streaming service would cost say 50 €/month, more people would pirate again. But the dominant factor first is the service quality.

In many countries that wont work. The Terms of service need to only include reasonable and expectable clauses, as they are not negotionable.

And “purchase doesnt mean ownership, we take it from you anytime we want” is neither reasonable nor expectable.

Also this should run under criminal fraud imo. The customers were deliberately deceived by the term “purchase” into believing they would be granted ownership.

Think about all the sad kids of the shareholders and executives when they only had 25 instead of 27 gifts under the christmas tree. How could you be so cruel?

The key here is certainty.

They claim that everyone would have otherwise paid for a subscription to watch it legaly. But that is simply not true.

When you could buy either variation of pasta in the store, where there is hundreds of boxes stapled, so price and availability are certain, you can speak of opportunity costs.

But here the elasticity is extreme. Many people will not buy this if it costs anything at all. Most probably would, if there is one service with reasonable prices where they can watch everyting. Some people are probably not able to watch a legal stream at all, because it isnt licenced to their country.

I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.

That is something you just cannot avoid with a new medium. Eventually there will always be professionalization. It just sucks that youtube now just gives us the same shit over and over instead of making it easy to find new creators, like it used to be.

But you see, it is only bad if it is done by authoritarian regimes, but we are states of law and democracy, so there is nothing bad about it. And we are states of law because trust me bro

-European conservatives and “social democrats”