You a-priori do not know if you have cancer. The case 1 branches are:
Case 1 without cancer: you're a guy that knows more than doctors because you're the "I have 3 scans on hand guy", so as soon as you open the scans and the doctor says there's a mass, you will say 'OK what can we do???' And then you had a worthless biopsy.
Case 1 with cancer: you saved the 1 week it would take to schedule the new scan and get results and you're basically in the same situation except one week earlier.
That's not how it works. Without the history of scans spaced out in time, they would typically need a biopsy. Multiple scans over time shows change and growth and improves the likelihood of an accurate triage
And for the first part that doesn't happen in my scenario before the doctor doesn't look at the scans
That great commons that are the multi trillion dollar corporations that could buy multiple countries? They sure worry about the commons when launching another datacenter to optimize ads.
no the "commons" in this case is the fundamental free-ness of YT - if abused then any corporations will have to shut it down...
OTOH I'm 100.0% sure that google has a plan, been expecting this for years and in particular, has prior experience from free Gmail accounts being used for storage.
> no the "commons" in this case is the fundamental free-ness of YT ...
Hmmm, isn't the "free-ness" of YouTube because there were determined to outspend and outlast any potential competitors (ie supported by the Search business), in order to create a monopoly for then extracting $$$ from?
I'm kind of expecting the extracting part is only getting started. :(
There is no "fundamental free-ness" for vids stored on YT. Videos are stored to serve the business plan of Youtube and under the rules Google sets for them, where they serve their advertisement and surveillance capitalism business.
Looking at the Wikipedia page for "Commons" [0] the first meaning of commons "accessible to all members of a society" is not really true, unless "on the whim of the YT platform". The second meaning of "natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit" is also not really true. There is no understanding that google will take any other than their own benefit into account. The third meaning of commons on that page is closest I guess to what is needed:
> Commons can also be defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but by a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates.
And that is certainly not what Youtube can be considered to be. Youtube videos are not in the commons, but kept on a proprietary platform where the proprietor is the sole decider what happens to its availability there.
You are right, but YouTube is also a massive repository of human cultural expression, whose true value is much more than the economic value it brings to Google.
Yes, but it's a classic story of what actually happened to the commons - they were fenced and sold to land "owners."
Honestly, if you aren't taking full advantage within the constraints of the law of workarounds like this, you're basically losing money. Like not spending your entire per diem budget when on a business trip.
Which do you think has more value to me? (a) I save some money by exploiting the storage loophole (b) The existence of a cultural repository of cat videos, animated mathematics explainers, long video essays continue to be available to (some parts of) humanity (for the near future).
This is assuming doing A has any meaningful impact on B.
Anyway in this situation it's less that YouTube is providing us a service and more, it's captured a treasure trove of our cultural output and sold it back to us. Siphoning back as much value as we can is ethical. If YouTube goes away, we'll replace it - PeerTube or other federated options are viable. The loss of the corpus of videos would be sad but not catastrophic - some of it is backed up. I have ~5Tb of YouTube backed up, most of it smaller channels.
I agree generally with you that the word "value" is overencompassing to the point of absurdity though. Instrumental value is equated with moral worth, personal attachment, and distribution of scarcity. Too many concepts for one word.
"Siphoning back as much value as we can is ethical."
I feel the same way. (Although, I am less sure of it.) However, I think backing up important parts of YouTube, as you have done, is a much better approach towards doing this.
Have you? Assuming Google would want to not put all their chips on that one number and invest all available capital in the purchase of a nation, and assuming that nation were open to being purchased in the first place (big assumption; see Greenland), Google is absolutely still in a place to be able to purchase multiple smaller countries, or one larger one.
This is an internet comment, adding the not a lawyer disclaimer just shows you have no clue about anything, because you don't even know you cannot be sued for giving legal advice on the internet.
What about TV, how come the channels are always playing?? They should shut off after 30mins and I shouldn't be able to press down button to do zapping all night long.
What about video games? We need session limits of 30mins, kids get too addicted to it.
In fact we're going to put a timer in every bedroom so that if you have sex with your wife for too long we'll fine you because it can turn into a real addiction.
Well nowadays you individually track by using mac addresses and other network information from the devices within range. Cisco has some creepy real time maps of your location with each person walking around and all their previous visits etc
Saw a system like this at a Podunk, nowhere, USA police station over a decade ago. It had high fidelity maps of peoples comings and goings based on Bluetooth and WiFi MAC IIRC. And some kind of API backend to look up identity based on those identifiers, not sure to who.
You could for example flag a location (house) and get a list of all of the comings and goings over the last x months, then look them up by identity. You could also flag when an individual was in proximity to another, or when someone turned on, off or switched phones.
I’m sure it amounted to illegal surveillance and would be inadmissible if any of it was done without a warrant, but it would be beautiful for parallel construction. (How is that even constitutional???)
It apparently relied on some kind of infrastructure deployment that consisted of “traffic cameras” and “satellites” ( I’m certain not of the spacecraft type) that I assume were just small receivers mounted on street lights, since the streetlights were almost completely replaced at the same time as the cameras were put in, by the same out of state contractor.
I was there to change out a bad SSD and do a RAM upgrade on one of the servers. I don’t imagine the technology has become less invasive.
If you have a phone or carry active Bluetooth devices, assume you are 100 percent tracked 100 percent of the time.
If you want to not be tracked I wouldn't even trust airplane mode. With just a SIM pinging towers already a lot can be done. With airplane mode I'm just being paranoid but I never tested radio emissions myself with it disabled so I'd just leave my phone at home if I was really worried about it.
Turning your phone off (airplane mode or power down, which sign out of networks) or lighting up a new one in the same location as an old one was turned off are treated as significant events in these systems and can be configured as an automatic flag for investigation.
If you care, slip it into a faraday bag instead of turning it off or going into airplane mode and you won’t be flagged nearly as likely. People rarely use airplane mode or turn off their phones in situations where it doesn’t provide a useful clue about activity.
There is a huge overlap between surveillance platforms and behavior analysis / data brokers.
Modern phones connect with a randomized MAC address. So yes, you can track a person around, but you will need another system (like the WiFi login page) to match MAC to identity.
I don't see how those religious groups that forced card payment processors to ban pornhub et al are not going to abuse this by mass reporting any nude picture they find as their own.
>”those religious groups that forced card payment processors to ban pornhub et al”
I question how much influence such groups actually have, given that payment processors already dislike dealing with adult oriented businesses.
The percentage of chargebacks and disputes made for those transactions is significantly higher than any other category. Companies hate having to investigate such claims and issue new cards, even when it appears fairly obvious the purchase was made by the cardholder. It’s also tricky from a customer service standpoint, because the cardholder may likely be lying in order to hide an embarrassing purchase from a spouse or other family member.
It seems like payment processors just want to get rid of a hassle for themselves.
If the input is "give ID", what the software claims to do is almost meaningless since you cannot prove that software was running. What do I care that someone can tell me they built a privacy-first way of validating IDs/age if I cannot be sure that is the software they are running?
They can just as easily save the ID to disk and return "all good" for all I know.
It requires that Bob proves posession of a private key, that only he has ever had. That private key could be generated specifically for the commitment that he got from Alice.
Case 1 without cancer: you're a guy that knows more than doctors because you're the "I have 3 scans on hand guy", so as soon as you open the scans and the doctor says there's a mass, you will say 'OK what can we do???' And then you had a worthless biopsy.
Case 1 with cancer: you saved the 1 week it would take to schedule the new scan and get results and you're basically in the same situation except one week earlier.
reply