Will people start .gitignore-ing their src directories and only save prompts?

Also, the FCC does not directly set standards and instead responds to complaints from the communities in which the broadcast is available. So it’s conceivable that in an environment where nobody cared, you could do this at any time of day.

In this case it is a flag indicating to the reviewer etc that the app links to a website for account creation and management rather than doing it all within the app.

I know that you already know this, based on your other posts on this thread.

The technology referenced in the post above is, at least in part, to prevent you from reselling the ticket without involving TicketMaster. That may be justified as a way to prevent selling the same ticket more than once, but it’s certainly the case that this is one of many possible approaches, and it’s the one that most favors this business.

It would probably be criminal for the company to act any other way, so I’m not claiming any evil doing here.

> Aside: All of the above work on many operating systems and support API’s other than epoll, which is Linux specific. The Internet is mostly made of Linux, so epoll is the API that matters.

You mean by clicking a link on his website?

How likely is it that google would block joe rogan's website from search results for joe rogan?

I feel like people keep dodging a central issue here - joe rogan is not an independent being silenced on the open web by centralized platforms - he effectively sold the show to one of the platforms. They decide what happens with it (specifics of the terms of their agreement notwithstanding).

this isn't the first controversial audio programming on the internet, but it is the first one that is effectively owned by one of the listening platforms that actually has the power to do something without wading into unfathomably complicated waters, if they want to. that they (until today?) seemed not to want to - or to pretend that their relationship to the show is the same as twitter's relationship to me - is what is keeping this in the news.

To be 100% clear - it's not obvious to me what anyone should do in this case; joe, spotify, etc. I have my own opinions about the cost / benefit on the content but I also know enough to expect that things are probably more complicated than the popular narrative I have access to.

What I do know for sure is that Joe would have more control of his show's destiny, not less, if he had decided to keep distributing in a way that did not give a single entity complete control over whether a given piece of content could be distributed at all.

You're framing these scores as though they measure the same things in the same ways as IQ tests. IQ tests are basically bullshit among the adult population. It's pretty easy to say that most 1 year olds can walk, so if you have a 15 month old that can't, it's notable. Once flagged in this way, kids are screened more thoroughly.

This is the patent application, as far as I can tell. And as others have noted, this is obviously a political stunt—the article makes that clear as well.

Frustratingly, it doesn't seem like there's anything interesting or useful happening in the actual patent. It would not surprise me to find that they had been rejected in part because the idea seems to be either literally impossible to implement or basically uninteresting, depending on your interpretation.

Also, as a non-lawyer, this stunt requires talking out of both sides of one's mouth. They necessarily assert that they have the authority to speak on behalf of the machine listed as the inventor in order to assign ownership of the patent, so why not just assert oneself as the inventor?

You're agreeing with the article, and seem to be suggesting that your agreement represents a universal viewpoint, but it does not seem to.

Services, in this article, doesn't refer to things that can only be built as services (e.g. because it queries a proprietary dataset) but those that might optionally be built as services (e.g. fetching and processing otherwise accessible data) and could, as easily, be built as a library.

But what we did see happens is that shows which were likely to provoke a negative response from audiences or advertisers were never produced, in large part for the exact same reasons.

The specific shape of events may look different, but that's the result of democratization, allowing more people to be part of the game where they spend money, make stuff, and get ads run against it.

In the cases where YouTube does pay for stuff before it airs or offers a guarantee on future ads, I am fairly confident the old TV dynamics are at play - they will ensure that the content they are funding will garner viewers and not offend advertisers.