In the legal sense, “personhood” just means an entity can appear in court and defend themselves, not that it’s made of people. It doesn’t even give the corporation any human rights, it mostly just means that you can sue them
I don’t know why anyone would be mad about than
See, you’re assuming that this would have taken time and money to develop. Usb3 is ubiquitous at this point, it probably doesn’t even cost any more to include, or if it does, it’s a trivial amount. This isn’t apple “not adding a feature” this is apple purposely removing features to push people to the more expensive versions
The base iPhone 15 is still a “premium” phone, it costs 2x as much as Google’s A series phones, and google never had a problem putting USB 3 on those. Maybe most people won’t do this, but it’s obviously important enough that they didn’t do the same on the pro version. It’s so weird to see people defending a company purposely gimping their phones just to give them upsells.
Ok, but how did the perimeter go from 4 to 24??
r/unexpectedfactorial
It’s still rational if you don’t care about those people though
These are the sorts of things where the line between zero and practically zero gets blurry, so people feel the need to emphasize that it might not be zero. Like, the chances of me finding a winning lottery ticket on the street without buying one might not technically zero, but the odds are low enough that not only is it not going to be part of my financial plan, but I also don’t feel the need to justify why.
The odds of hyper drive aliens being on earth is zero. There might be an error bar on that number, but it doesn’t practically matter
iirc they haven’t connected to anything yet, and nobody is actually quite sure what it’ll look like when they do. A few instances have defederated from threads already, but they’re totally just guessing because nobody actually knows what url they should be defederating from.
It’s a really cool technology, but the main problem is that letting people around the world inspect and verify just isn’t needed in most use cases. It does a great job at removing the central source of truth, but rarely does anyone explain what the problem with a central source of truth was. Especially when you’re talking about a company setting, startups don’t want to build open source software without a source of truth, they want to be the source of truth
And those people can continue to do it for nothing, but there’s no requirement that she should need to. It’s her choice if she want to do it for nothing or not, and it’s everyone else’s choice whether they want to support her with their money
tbh from what I’ve seen of her, I’m not sure that she has the temperament for a corporate job. Like, despite having the technical skills, she would probably be wholly unable to function in a typical white collar environment.
Which is essentially what section 230 has given all social media companies. They are absolved from responsibility from what users post, but own it all and can moderate (or fail to) however they want. Companies have all of the control
We need digital rights
Fundamentally the risk to the community is similar, all it takes is for an instance administrator to decide to nuke the community and there’ll be nothing we can do about it. But unlike on Reddit, there’s no single administrator that can nuke every piracy community. There will always be a piracy community somewhere on Lemmy, even if it isn’t this one
Youtube ads don’t just pay creators though, they also pay for video hosting, discovery, and streaming, which aren’t cheap. A lemmy for video streaming would be great, but there’s a reason it hasn’t really happened yet, you’d need a much larger portion of viewers to pay than what it takes lemmy to run, and you’d need a bigger community of developers to build it, which is why most youtube alternatives are strictly paid products. None of that is criticism of the idea, I think it would be great if we could wrench away some of youtube’s monopoly, but at the same time we need to understand why it’s a challenging concept