Cethin

Would you agree that the dashboard of a car is UI? If so, isn’t that just data visualization?

Again, the point is you were saying (or agreeing) that copies being available for free decrease the value. You then later say it has intrinsic value.

I’m not arguing that they don’t have intrinsic value. I’m arguing that you undermined the point of value decreasing if it exists for free by admitting this. It doesn’t. It’s worth something no matter what someone else paid, and no matter what you paid.

A game decreasing in price over time isn’t doing so because it’s worth less (usually, with the exception of online games). They’re decreasing the price to capture customers who don’t agree with the original valuation. It doesn’t change value to the consumer based on the price changing. The object is not suddenly less valuable when there’s a sale and more valuable again after. It has a degree of “goodness” no matter what. The price doesn’t effect this.

Also also, either the thing you’re copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn’t. If it’s of value, then it’s reasonable to expect payment for it. It’s it’s not of value, then you shouldn’t miss not having it.

Doesn’t this contradict the whole rest of the argument? It either has value or it doesn’t. It being available for free somewhere doesn’t change the value. If it’s not of value, then they shouldn’t miss you having it.

They get paid. They just don’t get a share of profits. They are usually paid a salary or, increasingly more commonly, are paid as a contractor.

Adding on to say: no. It doesn’t cost the creator anything when a pirated copy is made. They potentially miss a sale, but if their item wasn’t in a store where someone may have made a purchase you wouldn’t call that actively harmful, right?

In addition, most media the creators don’t actually make money from the profit. Most of the time they’re paid a salary, maybe with a bonus if it does particularly well. The company that owns the product takes the profit (or loss), not the actual creators.

Also, a lot of media isn’t even controlled by the same people as when it was made. For example, buying the Dune books doesn’t give money to Frank Herbert. It goes to his estate.

The difference is basically a nationalist thinks they’re superior. They don’t care about facts or anything, the just know they are the best. A patriot knows they can learn from others and improve things. They’re trying to improve things, not just force themselves on others.

I know I’ve said this so many times now, but you keep just wanting to say it’s the same as nationalism. This is my last reply I think because you just keep insisting I’m saying things I’m not.

I don’t know, man, I struggle to share your very US-centric view…

I used examples from the US. None of what I said had anything to do with the US outside of examples. I didn’t say this is only the case in the US or anything like that. Again, you keep putting words in my mouth. Argue in good faith or don’t at all. You’re just wasting both of our time.

You’re putting words in my mouth saying that I said American revolutionaries were great people. I never said such a thing, nor would I. Stop reading more into what I said than I actually said please.

They were people willing to lay their lives down for something they thought was worth fighting for. Not out of some ignorance that the status quo is the best option, but because they wanted to make changes to improve things for their community (and their self too, sure). That’s what patriotism is.

I’d argue that it’s necessarily not pristine. You have to be willing to get dirty. You don’t win a war with honor. You win it by killing other people until the other side isn’t fighting anymore. The same is true for any fight (not the killing necessarily, but being willing to do what needs to be done).

I just brought them up as an example of patriotism though. I’m not saying they’re a perfect example, just an example. This isn’t about the US, like you’re making it to be. You’re not arguing against the point. Your entire comment can be boiled down to “American revolutionaries are bad” but it doesn’t say really anything about patriotism.

Anyway, my point is, don’t let nationalists take the term. Maybe you don’t, but most people have positive opinions if the term. It’s easier and more useful to take the term back, because it isn’t necessarily a nationalist term. There are plenty of leftist patriots throughout history and the world. The right is good at using language as a weapon. We should be too, and we shouldn’t back off every time they try to use it.

Well, also AI is hurting actual human beings. We should be fighting against it too. Yeah, be careful of crossfire, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fire at all.

Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?

Cause that’s what the word means.

The land (and people), but not necessarily the state.

(The term state ahead is really annoying.)

Maybe part of it comes from being in the US, where we have a weird form of double governance of the “state” and “federal” governments. Which state are we loyal too, because they’re both ours? It makes things more malleable. The states could agree to form a totally new federal government if they wanted to.

A patriot may care for whatever arbitrary definition the XVIIIth century put on their identity and be well meaning enough about it. I’m not a patriot. The historical borders of what some consider a nation today have no particular relevance, beyond the fact that they happen to drive some level of administration.

There are multiple definitions of country. Some don’t care about the state that defines the borders. Your country is the land where you were born, not the state necessarily. One example that comes to mind in the US, which spans multiple states, is “Appalachia.” Appalachian people are a broad culture group who live in the Appalachian mountain region, and are distinct from the states they reside, and the larger US obviously. They are countrymen of each other.

I have no particular interest in whitewashing any of that into some supposedly healthy version of patriotism that has very rarely existed in any way.

No, the problem is some other people have changed the term to mean nationalist. For example, in the US, people were called patriots for fighting for the people in the colonies against the state that controlled them (Britain). They didn’t approve of the state and wanted to improve it, so they fought to change it and left the former state that was controlling them. Patriotism doesn’t have to be blind support of a state, and I’d argue that isn’t patriotism, because you aren’t defending it from bad actors/actions.

Regardless, I find that “making their country better” should be a distant second to “making the world better”, and perhaps a close third behind “making the crap you have on hand and the lives of those immediately around you better”.

I find this statement odd. So you think it’s best to start local, right? OK, so next from your immediate community, you should expand out, eventually to country, then to world, right? Isn’t that the logical progression. From more influence to less? Why is your priority jumping all over?

Look, I am not a globalist anarchist.

Funnily enough, I am an Anarchist. I don’t know if I’d call myself a globalist, but probably. I also believe in well structured democratic governments. Those aren’t at odds with each other.

Maybe I was the right age to look at the EU and think that those don’t have to be held to the absurd liberal idea of the nation-state,and that wherever a collective of humans have a common interest there should be governance structured to work with other layers of organization to improve things and enforce rights within that sphere. There is nothing magical about the nation-state layer of government that makes it more spiritually attuned to identity or the needs of the people. It’s all administrative stuff as far as I’m concerned.

I think we’re in agreement. This isn’t counter to what I said. I’d say it’s in unison with it. People should work to improve their governments in any way they can. They should try to reshape it to better represent them. That’s what a patriot would do, not just settle for the status quo and assume they’re the best possible version there can be.

Patriotism is very cool. Nationalism isn’t, which has mostly subverted the term patriot. A patriot stands up when their nation is doing something wrong. They don’t blindly believe they’re the best, they recognize that there’s things they can improve. They fight to make their country better, not to make others worse.

Yes, but not mouse movements. It’ll be things like then clicking on videos and page views. That can be automated easily.

Sure, but I don’t know how they’d get that data. Every tap likely isn’t stored. Still, I could write a script to fake it, and build a device to to it. It’s evidence, but it isn’t particularly strong.

Here’s what I think, though IANAL:

Your phone being somewhere unusual is pretty good evidence you were there, especially if a crime happened there. What are the odds you gave your phone to someone to go commit a crime with it on them?

However, if you’re planning on committing a crime, it wouldn’t be that difficult to have it play videos while you’re out doing said crime. It’s evidence that something happened, but it isn’t very strong evidence that you didn’t commit the crime.

However, a criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t need to prove that you’re innocent. You just need to create enough doubt that you’re guilty. It’s the prosecution that has to prove that you’re guilty.

Not that’d it’d convince them, but that argument only makes sense if God is real, and you shouldn’t be making laws based on your religion.

To actually convince them, I’d say that, if God is real, he created us with the capacity to understand this, and his creation has the capability to be modified by us. If he didn’t want us modifying it he would have made it not modifyable, which he can do because he’s omnipotent. Clearly this is a desired outcome if he’s real.

It’s my argument for drugs and stuff too. People use religion to say it’s bad, but in my opinion it only proves that it can’t be. He created it and us. Obviously it’s intended to have these results and he wanted us to have access to it.

Grifters, who don’t care but act like they do for money.

Astrofurfing, who are being paid to say things.

Bots, who aren’t people so can’t attend.

I think it started as negligence, but there’s no way they aren’t aware of it now and it’s willful too. At first it happened because they didn’t care, but now it happens because they like the result.

My bet is it’s partially on purpose. They think they can keep you on Windows by doing this, but for me it just ensured I go 100% Linux.

That was probably the right move. I had multiple drives, but only one SSD at the time, and I decided to dual boot with both on that SSD. Long story short, Windows fucked it up, I spent a lot of time recovering things, but Windows was never able to be recovered (I did manage to get Linux Bootable again). I decided to grab anything important off that drive and then just turned it fully into a Linux drive, and ditched Windows completely. It’s been great since.

Banning the ability to legally make a choice is effectively the same thing as banning the choice itself. It doesn’t matter if you’re legally allowed to consume something if it’s illegal to obtain it.

For example, I’m in VA. When Democrats last had power they legalized possession of Marijuana, and created a path towards establishing legal vendors. When Republicans took over, despite saying they wouldn’t do this, they removed the path to create vendors, so it’s illegal to purchase. It is technically still legal to grow it, but that’s the only legal option, and it isn’t an option for most people. In effect, it’s almost as illegal as it was before.