Coming to a dollar-store near you - all the space junk you could fucking buy.

[removed]

I use this function all the time

They already did worse when they shut down what.cd.

[removed]

[removed]

If you're talking about the ones at Walmart, their not after shop lifters, they are after more way to micromanage staff.

Why was everyone in tech over hiring? Why did this get so crazy?

Does anyone think this is actually related to emerging AI that can make work more "efficient", requiring fewer humans? It seems likely with all the tech layoffs...but this is never a talking point in media.

SLO?

Just so you know, IA had incoming revenue of 36 million in 2019. I doubt many authors come close to that.

Literally nobody believes this propaganda.

No kidding. I use a Mac as my daily driver, but I have to admit I find Apple's design choices for Mac OS frustrating. I really wish they would take the next release and just do some maintenance on the OS's basics, especially the goddamn finder. Also, Apple has totally ignored the gaming community, so if I want to do any kind of serious gaming I need separate hardware. Mac OS used to be a lot better IMO, but the addition of gatekeeper broke a LOT of software from the Unix/Linux world.

Linux would be ideal, but I need something that can run Adobe software and my work's office365 setup doesn't play well with Linux. Plus its hard to ignore the M series processor's Power to Performance ratio.

Windows is a huge mess. I don't understand what Microsoft's end goal for it is. They're actively removing basic functionality like local accounts and the ability to move the taskbar. Whats really egregious is their lack of concern for security issues and bugs. They straight up broke printing for something like a year. A while back, Microsoft canned their internal QA teams and outsourced the whole process to windows insiders.

Linux has a real opportunity here - they just need support from the proprietary world. Start getting native AAA games or productivity software and Linux can really make some headway.

Mass is neither created nor destroyed

[deleted]

[deleted]

Commenting so i can find this again later, thanks!!

[deleted]

Traditionally, libraries would buy copies of physical books and lend them out. As these books are physical, only one at a time could be lent. Libraries were not allowed to make photocopies of books and lend out multiple at a time.

When ebooks came along, making digital "photocopies" became potentially much easier. Thus, many ebooks came with DRM attached to prevent copying. As digital rights are different from the rights to physical goods, authors and publishers would generally provide a license for lending of ebooks in exchange for a fee. Libraries could still buy ebooks and lend them out, but the number of times they could lend them was restricted based on how much they paid for those rights.

The Internet Archive came along, bought a bunch of books, made ebook versions of them, and then lent them out -- usually one at a time, but for a while they lent out unlimited copies. Their argument is that buying a physical book once should allow them to lend it in ebook form one at a time, just like it allows them to lend it in physical book form one at a time, without paying any licensing fee for those electronic rights.

The Internet Archive should survive because it does a lot of good and useful stuff. It will survive even if it loses this case. At issue is whether or not this particular lending library practice should survive. Those who argue that it should generally don't think ebooks should have any copying restrictions anyway and think everyone should be able to get any book for free without paying the authors or publishers anything, because they see publishers as already too rich and too powerful and evil, and they believe authors will benefit more from the "increased exposure" of freely pirated ebooks and more people will buy their books as a result. They are generally also the same people who think copyrights are too long anyway and think that long copyrights only serve to benefit the publishers and not the authors.

People who support individual rights, authors, and publishers are generally against it, because they believe digital lending rights are different from physical lending rights and this is an important revenue stream for both authors and the publishing industry. Creating a new right that allows ebook copying not only denies individuals a right over the control of their work, but hurts them financially. They believe libraries are doing just fine with the current lending scheme and that there's no need to create a new giant free ebook library.

I was hoping the tech giants had planned and did all their layoffs at once. It really kills productivity being at a company that’s shedding jobs every quarter, not knowing when it’ll be your turn.

Unironically, thanks capitalism for allowing Brewster to create the Internet Archive and Open Library from the profits of selling his companies to Amazon.

Ironically, thanks capitalism for allowing the publishing vultures to try and shut it down.

I mean, they over-hired. What do people expect? It’s a business and it needs to make money to survive. Blatantly hating Amazon for no reason.

Seeing my forum posts from early 00s when I was cringy 13y/o is priceless.

I miss communities from that era.

[removed]

I happen to think that EFF and the IA are in the wrong here. I as a creator have the right to decide how I want to license the digital rights to my book. If I decide to control that, or sell that right to my publisher to control, that's my right as a creator. The IA does not have the right to decide to ignore my digital rights and decide that just because they own a physical copy of my book that gives them the right to distribute digital copies, even if they only do so "one at a time".