deweydecibel

My partner works in historical archiving for science and medicine. Museum work, basically. He’s told me so much of the archives are donated collections of notes, letters, journals, and so on from important doctors, researchers, scientists, etc. Donated by the subject themselves in their later years or by their families.

He’s told me there is a growing issue with those people starting to donate entirely digital collections, but even worse than that, are all the documents that are not being stored on a physical hard drive, but on web services and clouds. By the time these people are willing to start donating their things, so much of it has just been deleted forever without them realizing it. Or worse, they die, and their families no longer have access.

Working in IT, I told him about Microsoft’s growing push to eliminate Outlook and PST files, make it all web based email, and he wasn’t surprised, but he was still bummed to hear it. Apparently a not insignificant amount of those donations are locally stored emails.

They’re not talking about that, they’re talking about this from last year:

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring

If we’re talking about mobile, the Jellyfin app lets you download to the device already.

If we’re talking about laptops, as far as I’m aware, the Jellyfin desktop app doesn’t have a download feature.

Only if the people that pirate the shows are able to obtain those higher quality downloads.

As these platforms become increasingly hostile to users, they’re going to be well aware of the subsequent increase in piracy, and implement even more methods of preventing their content from being pirated.

It will always be impossible to stop piracy completely, but you can make it increasingly difficult to obtain best quality.

If I had to guess, it might be because the people that pirate Netflix shows may be doing it from the Windows app using the download feature. After all, you have full access to the file system on Windows.

Meanwhile, iPhones have always been locked down to prevent the user from accessing the file system, and Android in the last couple versions has locked its file system down too, while Google continues to become increasingly fierce in trying to detect and block anybody with a rooted device.

People have been making this comment for so long, with every anti-consumer change, and it’s never been true.

Killing VPN usages didn’t do it, canceling shows didn’t do it, the splintering of offerings across multiple platforms didn’t do it, killing password sharing didn’t do it, raising prices didn’t do it, including an advertising tier didn’t do.

And this will not do it.

Hell, this is barely going to tweak the dial. The overwhelming majority of people don’t watch Netflix on the desktop app, why should they fear kick back from the few that do? All they’ll say is the mobile versions will still let you download (because those file systems are sealed away from the user).

Consumers will accept anything if there’s no where else to get what they want. It’s why the “free market” has no power in the tech space: consumers are so addicted to their chosen platforms, apps, devices, and services that they will accept literally anything before they entertain the idea of using anything else.

That’s partially why enshitification is getting so bad: there’s no punishment for it. Users will not move.

but IMO they’re pretty weak

Well, thankfully, it’s not up to you.

retard

I mean, you’d probably find a substantial number of people at that rally that still think it’s ok to use this word in 2024.

The point of the article is to challenge Trump’s claims about the audience size during his speech, not to suggest he’s losing support. Mostly just to catch him in more lies.

The article states pretty explicitly that this is not unusual. Twice. That line they quoted is a direct line from the article:

Trump is still speaking in Wildwood but much of the crowd has left. It’s cold and he’s been speaking 90 minutes. This whole area was full of people when Trump started," Anderson wrote.

And again:

“You can clearly see that people are leaving while [Trump is] rambling incoherently,” Masterson wrote in another post. “This happens at a lot of rallies, cultists show up thinking he will say something new and profound. Then they get bored and walkout.”

The whole premise of the article is stated right up front. Trump claimed an audience of 100,000, but the evidence shows that audience didn’t hang around for him, undercutting the claim.

Feels like before you complain about journalism ethics you should at least commit to actually reading the articles so you know what you’re complaining about.

In what world are Tesla’s “cheap”?