Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47695761

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Out of curiosity, I took a quick look at some of the web frameworks available, they are interesting. Lucky's Components looks pretty good, but I still prefer Phoenix's Components because the syntax make it very close to raw HTML. Compilation is not incremental and is single threaded which means I have to wait at least 5 seconds every time I make a change (this was on a minimal project). It's not that bad, but compared to Elixir/Phoenix where it's almost instantaneous, it makes a difference.

Still, Crystal is an awesome language, and if for one reason Elixir was not a choice for a web project, I would definitely consider a Crystal framework.

With Forgejo (Codeberg) you can toggle features such as pull requests, issues, etc.

You can also configure any external issue tracker or wiki apparently, though I've never tried it, because those included with the forge are good enough for me.

It being legal doesn't do much about its unfairness.

> For the average person who can maybe comfortably afford $90 per year, a subscription service is a much more viable way to support the musicians they listen to than buying 4-9 albums

The option that you describe as the best for people who can't put more than 90$ a year on music (which is perfectly fine), is going through a subscription service, because even if a lesser amount of that money goes directly to artists, more of them get to see a bit of it.

I disagree with that, because you don't know for sure where your money is going, as all of this distribution system around streaming services is pretty opaque. As far as I know, the money from subscriptions on Spotify is not equally distributed among the artists that a user listens to. Bigger artists tend to get more per play than smaller ones.

The other option would be to spend that same amount on buying albums each year on a service like Bandcamp, which is known to distribute the money in a more direct and transparent way, and where artists actually have more control over what and how they want to sell.

It definitely means making a choice about what to buy, but it is still better than letting an obscure algorithm make that choice for you.

We should also consider that we can favor artists who are in need over those who are already earning large amounts. This is the opposite of what streaming services seems to be doing.

> your idea that poor people should have reduced access to the arts

This is not my idea and I didn't say that. I criticize those who waste their time chasing the "theft", who they blame for being the origin of the artists being poorly paid, when the subscription model being proposed as the best solution is actually far from it and could also be considered as theft when you put out the numbers of how much artists are asking for their work.

A lot of people here would rather blame those who steal better than they do, than question the industry that allows artists work to be sold off.

Furthermore, I would say that most people using Spotify and alike services do it only for convenience, but certainly not to "support the artists".

So, in my opinion, calling Android an Open Source OS is kind of misleading, but it's a matter of how you interpret what Android is. I would rather refer to Android as the final product (which relies on proprietary software), and to AOSP as the open source project which Android is built on.

Plus, I think that AOSP and Android are considered two different entities and I doubt that AOSP is under the trademark of Android.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38619531

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

> To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

Art is older than intellectual property.

"To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38497282

Points: 5

# Comments: 2