@clacke #HK's banking system may differ, but from what I know of #USA payment apps, "instant transfer" depends on a slower background transfer, so you can have the funds for a couple of days and suddenly not have those funds.
> Now, if consumer spending shrinks modestly, it could do the trick of slowing inflation to a nice degree without harming the economy. But if consumer spending declines substantially, and within a short period of time, it could be enough to fuel a recession.
This was in December, so a similar survey today might have a different result.
When I had that conversation, #sonTwo mentioned that he didn't think #SnapChat was as popular as it once was. I'd seen someone online making the same claim earlier today. The only person I know who used it is my nephew #Papaya, but he's in another state, so I don't even know whether he still uses it.
> Snapchat has always had a reputation for being an app for teens or young people, so it has always struggled to keep an older audience. Only 3.7% of Snapchat users are over 50. The heavy lean towards younger people may be why Snapchat has had trouble staying relevant over its history. People over 24 may feel like most of their peers don’t use the app anymore, so it is less popular.
and
> As of the third quarter of 2022, Snapchat has 363 million daily active users, according to Statista. This puts it in a similar region to Twitter. It is also the highest number of daily active users reported on Snapchat for the entire survey period spanning back to 2014.
He also said that he looked into #Threads, but if he creates a Threads account and then closes it for any reason, it would also close the associated #Instagram account. Naturally, since Threads is so new, there won't be any specific content about it.
I suppose that it probably depends on the audience that the employer is targeting. I'm sure there are some SNM folks managing communities on extreme left-wing or extreme right-wing sites also.
They are BOTH artificial creations of the state. Neither one exists absent the state's rules.
For copyrights, there is actual justification for existing. If you're a writer and you write a book, you're depending on exclusively being able to sell your book for some time period before anyone else who wants to can make money off your mental labor. This differs from selling a table you made because: (1) the work to reproduce the table is generally the same work the carpenter did to make it originally, so each individual copy stands as its own work; (2) the work to reproduce the book is currently little or none, and has little to do with the thing that gives it value (the text of the book); (3) with the book, if it is in electronic format, it is easily possible to sell or give the item away and still retain a copy for oneself ... which defeats the *exclusive commercial reproduction and distribution* aspect of copyright; (4) with the table, it is possible to have the design in an electronic format, but someone still has to use that design to form the materials into a table.
The problems with copyright have to do with: (1) length -- there absolutely should not be a copyright so long that the author's descendants get a stream of residual income fifty to one hundred years after the mental labor occurred ... if it was something like twenty years from creation, it would be reasonable ... but it was just in the last year or two that Steamboat Willy (the original cartoon where Mickey Mouse appeared) and Winnie the Pooh went off-copyright; (2) work-for-hire -- this displaces the creator and instead puts an organization that employed them as the direct recipient of any returns ... there are certainly cases where this is justified, but organizations overuse it to deprive the actual creators, while harvesting their work for up to a century; (3) re-use (personal, non-commercial, interpretive, fair use, etc) -- copyrights should ONLY restrict commercial use, not incidental or non-commercial use ... it wasn't for nothing that I mentioned the toddler dancing. See https://nu.federati.net/url/290994#! (4) resale -- in many situations, the copyright holder wants to get paid when the original purchaser sells or gives the work away ... assuming the original purchaser doesn't retain a copy themselves, that should never be the case.
In the case of corporations, they are given powers that the underlying humans do not have (such as living forever and limited liability), so it matters very much whether we allow them to use copyrighted works without paying. Similarly, it matters very much whether we allow a giant gaming console hardware company (one of THREE worldwide) to purchase one of the top three software companies that produce games for such consoles.
Corporations, by their very nature, coerce people to do things that benefit the corporation, even if it is not beneficial to the individual. Thus, for as long as we allow corporations and corp-alikes (LLC/LLP, LP, Gmbh, etc) to exist, we need governments to constrain their actions and behaviors so they benefit more than just themselves and their management and stockholders. We even had to force them to benefit their stockholders ... managers, who are supposed to act in the best interests of the stockholders, do not do so unless the potential for significant liability exists.
In the Sarah Silverman et al lawsuits mentioned, the only correct ruling would smack the corporations in their heads, while making it clear that any copyright restrictions are limited to commercial uses. Unfortunately, judges and politicians lack any understanding of technology, and thus they tend to make the worst possible decisions.
It's true that your own family's businesses will tend to underpay you, but there's an implied benefit: either you're still living at home and the profits from the business are subsidizing that ... or you're expecting to possibly inherit some share of ownership.
It isn't always the case, sure. When my mom's store was operating, she freely used the unpaid labor of any of her children and grandchildren who were near enough to be pressed into service. But as one of my sisters put it, there was never a month when the store broke even. It was a relief when it finally closed.
On the other hand, when $BIG_CORP tells you "you're family", the money they aren't paying you is going to pay the CEO more, and you get zero benefit from it.
Mom posts video of toddler dancing to copyrighted song = sue the f*ck out of her under #DMCA; giant corporation sucks up vast swathes of copyrighted materials and feeds them to a computer = "information wants to be free".
I would like to greatly shrink copyright, but let's shrink its effects on individuals. Corporations already have too much power.
#SciLab (which, like #Octave is a #FOSS implementation that is mostly compatible with #Matlab) has some tutorial walk-throughs on its site. I've gone through most of them, but never felt like I'd learned enough to do something from scratch.
I know that SciLab differs from Matlab more than Octave does, so when I tried to do some SL walkthroughs in Octave, it was unsurprising that they didn't work quite the same way.
@fu I know that anti-trust law is complex, but one doesn't need much more than a pulse to see that merging one of the biggest gaming software houses with one of the biggest gaming hardware and services houses is going to harm competition ... and that means it will harm gamers. I didn't follow the trial much, but the #FTC should have shown up with thousands of pages of exhibits, hundreds of experts testifying, and a timeline of past #Microsoft ( #MSFT ) anti-competitive acts to show a propensity.
Not that this should have been the first such merger they tried to block. The federal government doesn't really seem to get that "a free market" can only happen when neither individual buyers nor individual sellers have enough market power to force their chosen prices and terms upon the other party. Thus, in a situation where there are really only three gaming console hardware vendors worldwide and the software vendors have to contract with the hardware vendors for each specific game, there can never be a free market and governmental authorities have to whack the vendors with a stick periodically to make them play fairly with one another and with the gaming customers who buy their products and services. Or, you know, break those giant corporations up into multiple smaller organizations and prevent them from coordinating their pricing, promotion, production, etc in ways that hurt the gaming customers. I know that #USDOJ missed its chance around 1999-2001, when it had won its case against Microsoft and then came a change of administration and it punted on having the court impose an effective remedy.
As a business major, I feel like no one else was paying attention in their classes when this stuff was being discussed. It's covered in the two basic economics classes and also in business economics, business management, business law, and in legal environment of business, and those are just the ones I remember.