Licensing being a giant mess for media is not exactly news? Netflix reportedly got some really good deals early on, but of the kind that nobody was willing to do again.
They didn't have the luxury of first sale to protect their market, though. Which is a very sharp contrast to how they ran the DVD side of things.
So, it isn't that they were wasting money on licensing. Licensing kept getting more and more expensive. Not fully for nefarious reasons, but that doesn't change that it was so.
I mean, I just have to point out how that isn't even close to the pricing models that are in use. That is, if you "rent/buy" through the places that offer it, you don't pay more the more that you watch it. Similarly, if it was that straight forward, then you could make more as a content owner by basically bot farming out a steady stream of watchers for your content.
But the point was that the older "pre streaming" deals would be on catalogs of films and would apportion out royalties based on several factors. This is why some shows have been forever on late night television. Turned out, getting that catalog to offer on streaming was valuable, but not if you started having to pay primetime rates for every single view.
So, the "uproar" was that Netflix got a deal that was very valuable to them at the start, and then refused to cave to a deal that was not at all valuable to them when the studios had a chance to renegotiate.
To be clear, it was fair for the studios to want to renegotiate. It is also fair for Netflix to question if it is worth it to them in some of the newer negotiations.
> Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.
For some subset of people, this isn't true. Some people don't end up going on a single date or get a single match. And even for those who get a non-zero number there, that number might still be hovering around 1-2 matches a year and no actual dates.
> Are we talking people trying to date or "trying to date"?
The former. The latter I find is naught more than a buzz word used to shut down people who complain about a very real problem.
> If you bring up Tinder etc then I would point out that AI has been doing bad things for quite a while obviously.
Clearly. But we've also been cornered into Tinder and other dating apps being one of very few social arenas where you can reasonably expect dating to actually happen.[1] There's also friend circles and other similar close social circles, but once you've exhausted those options, assuming no other possibilities reveal themselves, what else is there? There's uni or collage, but if you're past that time of your life, tough shit I guess. There's work, but people tend to have the sense to not let their love life and their work mix. You could hook up after someone changes jobs, but that's not something that happens every day.
If you have 100 men to 100 women on an imaginary tinder platform and most of the men get rejected by all 100 women it's easy to see where the problem would arise for women too.
In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.
The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.
> the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men.
Isn't it weird? There should be approximately equal number of not married men and women, so there should be some reason why there are less women on dating platforms. Is it because women work more and have less free time? Or because men are so bad? Or because they have an AI boyfriend? Or married men using dating apps shift the ratio?
Obviously men are people and therefore can vary, but a lot of them rely on women to be their sole source of emotional connection. Women tend to have more and closer friends and just aren't as lonely or desperate.
A lot of dudes are pretty awful to women in general, and dating apps are full of that sort. Add in the risks of meeting strange men, and it's not hard to see why a lot of women go "eh" and hang out with friends instead.
Expectations and reality will differ. Ultimately we will have soft eugenics. This is a good thing in the long run, especially with how crowded the global south is.
Nature always finds a way, and it's telling you not to pass your genetics on. It seems cruel, but it is efficient and very elegant. Now we just need to find an incentive structure to encourage the intelligent to procreate.
Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.
>Maybe lower their standards to the point that they can be satisfied by a real person, not a text completion algorithm that literally worships the ground they walk on and outputs some of the cheesiest, cringiest text I've ever read.
The vast majority of women are not replacing dating with chatbots, not even close. If you want women to stop being picky, you would have to reduce the "demand" in the market, stop men from being so damn desperate for any pair of legs in a skirt.
They are suffering through the exact same dating apps, suffering through their own problems. Try talking to one some time about how much it sucks.
Remember, the apps are not your friend, and not optimized to get you a date or a relationship. They are optimized to make you spend money.
The apps want you to feel hopeless, like there is no other way than the apps, and like only the apps can help you, which is why you should pay for their "features" which are purposely designed to screw you over. The Match company purposely withholds matches from you that are high quality and promising. They own nearly the entire market.
I looked through a bunch of posts on the front page (and almost died from cringe in the process) and basically every one of them was a woman with an AI "boyfriend".
We do see - from 'crazy cat lady' to 'incel', from 'where have all the good men gone' to the rapid decline of the numbers of 25-year-olds who have had sexual experiences, not to mention from the 'loneliness epidemic' that has several governments, especially in Europe, alarmed enough to make it an agenda pointt: No, they would not. Not all of them. Not even a majority.
AI in these cases is just a better 'litter of 50 cats', a better, less-destructive, less-suffering-creating fantasy.
I think you are using "not required by the POSIX standard" when you say "not in" which is not an accurate shorthand.
#! is certainly in the POSIX standard as the exact topic of "is /bin/sh always a POSIX" shell is a discussion point (it is not guaranteed since there were systems that existed at the time that had a non-POSIX shell there)
Are they in POSIX? I do not think they are. All of them is a convention from what I remember.
Shebang is a kernel feature, for example, and POSIX does define the sh shell language and utilities, but does not specify how executables are invoked by the kernel.
Similarly, POSIX only requires that sh exists somewhere in the PATH, and the /bin/sh convention comes from the traditional Unix and FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard), but POSIX does not mandate filesystem layout.
You're definitely correct. "#!" is reserved (see Rationale C.2.1), but not required, though it's described as "ubiquitous" (see Rationale C.1.7). "/bin/sh" isn't required either, but arguably ubiquitous in that there's always some shell located there. The proper way to find the POSIX-conformant shell is with `command -v sh` (which is equivalent to using `getconf PATH` and then searching for sh), and POSIX counsels to discover the path and substitute it inline when installing scripts (see Application Usage in sh utility specification.)
IME /bin/sh is invariably sufficiently POSIX conformant to bootstrap into a POSIX shell (or your preferred shell), even on Solaris and AIX. And if you're willing to stick to simple scripts or rigorously test across systems, sufficient for most tasks. Outside Linux-based systems it's usually ksh88, ksh93, pdksh, or some derivative. OTOH, for those who are only familiar with bash that may not be particularly helpful.
I've had more trouble, including bugs, with other utilities, like sed, tr, paste, etc. For shell portability it's usually niche stuff like "$@" expansion with empty lists, for example how it interacts with nounset or IFS, independent of POSIX mode.
What specific action did the US government take against Hyundai here?
Or did they just gut their workforce and claim that was "enough of a penalty".
Historically the US has implicitly condoned these illegal actions by employers by refusing to ever take action against them.
There has only ever been action taken against employees, who sometimes aren't even meaningfully informed that they are breaking the law. (Certainly they often know but the employer always knows)
> What specific action did the US government take against Hyundai here?
There are levels of plausible deniability that need to be pierced for actions to stand up in a court of law. Hyundai has already claimed these workers were not employees and were subcontractors or sub-subcontractors. Just the negative press and pressure from the SK govt may do a lot in the future for Korean carmakers to try and do better checking on workers working in their factories.
The previous situation being that such raids didn't happen, at least not on this scale. So Hyundai had zero pressure to change anything, not even bad publicity or interruption to car production via 400 workers being detained.
After 'negotiations' by South Korea, which, going by the historical pattern, almost certainly means Trump holding those people hostage while demanding incoherent concessions from the South Korean government.
In this case for at least some of those people there was no visa and no visa needed. South Koreans can make trips for business purposes to the US without any extra paperwork as long as it's under 90 days.
It's true that what counts as 'business' and not 'work' has always been an ambiguous line, but given that the arrestees include executives who generally haven't been historically subject to this kind of treatment, I'm sure the lawyers could make a very good argument in their favor.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the actions taken, I’m commenting specifically on the argument I was replying to. I see that hypocrisy critique in a lot of forms and I just don’t get it.
I actually dont think that Americans on business visas in China setting up factories and training workers was wrong. This isn't a "two wrongs make a right" argument. It would've been a long term strategic blunder for China if they had stopped it.
Yes, but you'll often find that in a high-deductible plan the insurance company gets a "discount" of your $1k med down to $200, which they brag about in your EOB… but the medication's cash price for uninsured people would be $20.
You're out of pocket $180 more than you should be, and paying the $20 cash price out of pocket means your deductible doesn't budge.
It's straightforward fraud. Both the providers and insurers goal is to mislead people into thinking the "adjustment" represents a payment from the insurance company.
The pattern is even more flagrant when done with post-facto billed services, since the price hasn't even been assented to. The whole medical industry has essentially normalized many different types of fraud against patients, and yet the industry is so entrenched that state/county AGs don't bother going after them.
As long as it is a legitimate discount (which it legally always is) they aren't lying perse.
After all the discount getting inflated by charging non-insured people ludicrous prices is the real issue but not one you can meaningfully complain about as an insured.
And unfortunately if you ask for pricing they will give you the inflated pricing meaning it isn't necessarily deceptive there.
The problem is that it's framed as a payment from the insurance company, so people think the insurance is helping with the bill. What has actually happened is the insurer and pharmacy are cooperating to create sham prices/paperwork and confuse the market.
It's even more glaring for post-facto bills from providers, because those prices are being presented on a cost-reimbursement basis (not contractual). The provider is essentially saying "You owe us $500 because that is what it cost to provide your care". But it obviously could not have cost $500 to provide the service, because they're happy to accept $150 in total.
Providing a discount to insurance companies is not fundamentally bad or nefarious.
Medicare/Medicaid tend to pay less than private insurance, however lots of places accept it because that gives them access to a bunch of potential clients.
Leveraging your user base to get a discount from a provider is normal and expected.
The problem is when insurance companies demand a particular discount and providers given them that discount by raising their prices.
Certainly a 70% discount is a sign of a bad price (assuming it isn't part of a cost normalization scheme where some services get deep discounts and others are paid with little or no discount aka "I get 70% off dangerous surgeries but I will pay 110% of simple ones")
However if instead the normal price was $200 and they accepted $150 to get access to the network that is normal.
It feels like you're just skipping the core of my points and repeating the justification that has allowed the situation to get this bad. The fake prices and 50-100% discounts are indeed symptoms of a pathological behavior that indicates it's not about true good-faith "discounts".
One straightforward healthcare reform that could be done tomorrow would be to mandate that providers must charge the same price no matter who is paying, rather than the current behavior of operating pricing cartels in league with the insurance companies. This would work even if the government kept giving itself a pass by excepting Medicare.
And if a provider keeps charging the same amount only now they actually get it because the law requires that insurance companies pay in certain instances?
My point is just that providers raising their prices to give insurance companies a bigger discount is a problem but getting a discount isn't itself flawed.
You keep outright ignoring my point, and then simply asserting that you don't see a problem. A bill from the provider shows a fake cost that they're demanding you reimburse them, and also a fake payment from the insurance company. Those are lies to make you think you are getting a benefit that you are not actually getting. That's called fraud.
Unless you are comparing a generic to a name brand in a situation where the insurance company forces the name brand that shouldn't be the case.
For better or worse in your hypothetical the uninsured price legally has to be $1,000 for medicine. They can write off part of that but no one would write off 99.8% as the insurance company would sue their pants off.
"In March, Novo Nordisk cut the price of all doses of Wegovy by 23% for people paying in cash, dropping it from $650 to $499 per month for uninsured patients or those without coverage. (The list price of $1,349 stayed the same.)"
"It follows a similar move from Eli Lilly, which reduced Zepbound’s starter dose to $349 and higher doses to $499 through its self-pay program, Lilly Direct. The discounted doses require patients to manually draw the medication from a vial with a syringe, adding an extra step compared to the prefilled injector pens."
Netflix is buying Warner Brothers and you think Netflix was wasting money on licensing costs?
More like Netflix's bet that if it didn't share usage information it could keep underpaying for what it was getting paid off.
reply