> Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.
the rarity is not the source of the value, but an amplifier for the value in a market driven society
> It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.
does she understand privilege? she's a music slaver, she's advocating that music remain a limited experience accessible for a few. I have a HUGE problem with this.
this is, in my view, an energetic interaction centered about value, perceived value, and measured value. i could say more but i rant... something something digital assets can be copied for free let's not let a scarcity mentality ruin this for all.
finally, what she really sells in her shows has real value, the scarcity is her physical existence, this is NOT THE SOURCE OF VALUE. the energy/money dynamics are a form of power.
edit: I echo this sentiment: "Sad to see generations grow up on music being a spectator sport and not a communal, participatory activity". but notice how this huge Taylor mega shows ARE a communal activity. Dancing is the main avenue for communal musical participation
> does she understand privilege? she's a music slaver, she's advocating that music remain a limited experience accessible for a few
She's advocating that artists get paid for their work and not sell themselves short. Whatever means our society permits that allows artists to capture the value of their work should be taken. If you want music to be "open access" and effectively patronage that's fine but it doesn't change her point.
We're in a golden era right now where the art itself is so cheap it might as well be free and paid for by scarce goods sold to fans who can afford them. If you squint it's almost pay-what-you-want. My $10/mo Spotify subscription cost me $0.00002/hr last year.
It totally could be solved. Make it a licensed profession. Make it like the legal practice where you have to go to school for 3 years and then pass a test to get your license. Only half joking.
agree with testing and licensing (and unionizing) but is there any particular reason people should have to go to school? one of the great things about the software industry is that anyone can teach themselves and make a healthy career out of it - would be a shame to add what might be an unnecessary gatekeeping requirement to one of the last few accessible career-paths with upward class mobility
I think the results would be better as all practitioners would be well-versed in theory and practice. And of someone pitched a very novel approach, it would get more scrutiny. Of course we should be open to new approaches - just not for the sake of it being new.
I don't agree because current graduates aren't necessarily well-versed in theory and practice. In fact I've worked with CS graduates that don't understand theory at all and follow the worst conceivable practice. Of course CS education isn't standardized and I'm not talk about Stanford grads here. But I have a hard time believing that simply erecting barriers that require education will improve the situation when a lot of educated people still have no idea what they're doing.
I've worked with plenty of educated developers who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. One of our local universities has a shockingly bad program that's reproducing their own unique little brand of terrible bullshit. I've spent half my career fixing the messes they leave behind at various companies in the area.
I think left to our own engineers would have resolved to something like this already. The issue as I see it is corporations and business people have taken over the leadership of this trade to rake in money regardless of what it does to the real world.
And why wouldn't they you can create a problem out of thin air, solve the problem poorly selling the solution, and then when your rushed, half assed and bad solution has issues, you can simply sell the fix to that as well.
I doubt we will see much progress in the quality and rigor of software engineering in the near term, it will need to take a shift from making money in the short term at any cost to making a quality product. Instead we see the same thing happening to other industries so I hold little hope in the near term.
this is IBM firing its guns straight at liberty minded software
here come the rent seekers: soon enough we will have to pay per character we type. this may seem exaggerated and I really really do hope it stays a gross exaggeration and never actually actually happens.
nonetheless, the trends are here and this is part of them; and we all knew it was a merely matter of time before IBM started to destroy what redhat once was and turned it into more IBM
after a while of starving this project, some 'visionary business founder' is gonna come up with some sort of subscription service to use this software.
this is equally applicable to you: to believe you're right regardless of correctness for the sake of feeling well.
but I'm not interested in mere feeling well, I want to BE well. I find it difficult to find other's with whom to engage in productive dialogue so to actually be able to get closer to correctness.
the absolute majority of time I post this opinion, or any close to it, I get downvoted and the discussion I'm looking for gets shut down. Taboos are part of the toolkit.
Do you know IBM has any responsibility in this choice? If you do, the productive thing to do would be to cite your sources. If you don't, it would be to state which assumptions led you to blame IBM's leadership rather than Red Hat's. But you did neither.
but do not make the mistake I have: to believe doing this will get anybody to accept that you understand, or at least this has been my experience so far.
> “The justice system in Veracruz can’t be relied on to investigate, punish, or deter criminals, nor has the government launched a major campaign to boost the vanilla industry”
source: I'm Mexican,
I would say this about the entire country, not just one state. I would blame this on imperialism, but I already did.
however if you have money, you can buy your justice, selling drugs gives one money...
step 1: wage a war of disinformation of vanilla "vanilla is getting the kids high"
step 2: end up making it illegal, of course, vanilla will keep coming
step 3: declare war on vanilla because of reasons
step 4: profit!
punchline step: replace vanilla with marijuana, or other native south American plants (cocaine).
but c'mon. I'm referring to the fact that code can be made into libraries, or APIs if you're so keen on collecting rent
and then as a digital asset, the library can be copied and distributed, hence code can be written once (one team writes it) then everybody else can use it with no additional cost, (again, unless you actually want to tax/collect-rent from other people, then you make up this additional cost)
Only if you use dictionary meanings of words. Otherwise it really is not different. 99.99% of all meaningful code is not gotten right on the first try. As said above, you have to iterate on it.
> I'm referring to the fact that code can be made into libraries, or APIs if you're so keen on collecting rent
Name one library -- that is NOT just a network client for a paid SaaS service -- and then maybe I'll understand what point you're trying to make. And even if you find one, they are a vanishingly small, undetectable, minority.
you should learn about systems software... they may be 'vanishingly small' but they're there in the foundations of the entire computing stack. done once, a long time ago, and used by all ever since.
my point is that I refuse to adjust my expectations to a technological environment in which we are ok with having to pay per API call to use software.
I reject a future in which all software works as a subscription based service; this is just more taxes (in principle)
I see society going down this path and there are no good reasons for this at all (it is just double then triple then mutliplefold taxation on activity; and what for? so that few lucky persons collect rent forever?).
my problem with this theory I can only explain in my own terms
my problem is that this perspective confuses together individuals and systems
no great men exist in isolation, some name takes most of the credit but they're all but a sum of their circumstances, which in all cases include other top people who never get to be as famous
strict clarity of this is extra important now that fully autonomous 'systems' are taking off, which makes them even more likely to be confused with individuals:
who invented the slate-computer (smartphone): Apple Corporation
then a whole history of apple as if they were a person whose father as another person called Steve Jobs (and their mother was Steve W?) or whatever
The question isn't whether they need more people to make it all work. That's not in dispute. It's the degree to which any of these people are replaceable. If you removed any of the engineers working on the iPhone Jobs would have hired another engineer and cracked on with the project. Maybe there would have been more bugs, or slightly worse features, maybe there would be some things better.
Take out Jobs, and there is no iPhone, or even an OSX to base it on. It took the competition years to catch up, and that's bearing in mind they knew they needed to. Prior to the iPhone announcement, Android was going to be a BlackBerry clone.
Or take SpaceX, nobody but Musk was pushing for first stage re-use. Seven years later no other company has landed an orbital class first stage booster, or seems anywhere close to doing so, and that's with the concept absolutely proven. How long would we have to wait for someone to even try without Musk gathering a team and making it happen?
what's the difference between running a program (interpreting it), and compiling it?
where's (and what's) the line that distinguishes the program from the output of the program where both parts are just software?
--
the most interesting thing about turning machines is the universal turing machine because it actually invents/defines/showcases software as we understand it nowadays; this makes me reflect on how the busy beaber problem just misses out on this realization
just like during all the 19th and a bit of the 20th century USA immigration was dominated by Irish, Italian, and other europeans. Mexican's have been the largest source of immigrants into the USA... and this is also as an aside of parts of USA which were part of mexico at one point (Texas, etc..)
as a mexican I'm aware that the biggest drug cartel in the country is the same thing as the government. this is specially true at lower levels of government; but then I went on to learn that the biggest drug cartel in a worldwide level are actually the american government, I understand this may be impossible to accept for a few people.
as a mexican from veracruz, I KNOW as far as I can know (meaning I don't know, but I guess) that the state's executive was controlled by the zetas cartel (first decade of the 2000s)
final tidbit: the technical name of Mexico is "United States of Mexico" (in spanish, clearly)
the rarity is not the source of the value, but an amplifier for the value in a market driven society
> It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.
does she understand privilege? she's a music slaver, she's advocating that music remain a limited experience accessible for a few. I have a HUGE problem with this.
this is, in my view, an energetic interaction centered about value, perceived value, and measured value. i could say more but i rant... something something digital assets can be copied for free let's not let a scarcity mentality ruin this for all.
finally, what she really sells in her shows has real value, the scarcity is her physical existence, this is NOT THE SOURCE OF VALUE. the energy/money dynamics are a form of power.
edit: I echo this sentiment: "Sad to see generations grow up on music being a spectator sport and not a communal, participatory activity". but notice how this huge Taylor mega shows ARE a communal activity. Dancing is the main avenue for communal musical participation