Or as the clickbait news should report it:

FBI Director Claims Charlie Kirk Not Going To Heaven

Are you a night owl who stays up long after the sun sets, or an early bird who gets up long before the sun rises? That’s one way to get a lot more Dark Mode time.

I knew a guy who worked for a company in Boston, but he’d always dreamed of living in Hawaii. He managed to get them to agree to his moving to Hawaii, but said that he still needed to keep East Coast hours. That meant he was getting up about 6 hours earlier than normal, and was joining meetings when it was pitch black there. But, for him it was worth it, not because he was a fan of Dark Mode, but because he was really into SCUBA and this schedule meant that he was off work by noon and could spend his afternoons SCUBA diving.

It was probably hell on his social life to be in bed by 6pm. But, the schedule was perfect for diving. He was off work when the light was at its best and could dive 7 days a week not just on weekends.

I’ve mostly lived in temperate climates, but I’ve visited places with rainy seasons like that.

I always thought it was a season where it rained a lot with constantly overcast skies and a lot of drizzle, like Portland / Seattle / Vancouver in the winter. But, sometimes it’s the season where you know it’s probably not going to rain at all during the day except at 5pm you can expect a huge downpour, then it goes back to normal.

Don’t you get rainy seasons?

The nice thing about early winter sunsets is that the path the sun takes through the sky leads to longer sunsets so it takes longer for it to be fully dark.

You’re a fan of Dark Mode IRL.

Let’s hope Lemmy grows big enough that I can just be part of the crowd.

I wonder if anyone has ever done the math on how much (in L or kg) water is moved by the moon each day. It’s got to be something absurd.

If your boss decides where you have to live, then sure. But, when you choose where to live, and you choose where to work, and you choose to work for a company that requires you to work in person, and you choose to live far away from that job, then… these are your choices.

Now, if a company wants to make it much more attractive to come into the office, paying a 20% bonus that people get if they choose to come into the office, that’s great. They’ll probably attract a lot more applicants.

Fundamentally, the issue here is the concentration of wealth. If wealth were more evenly distributed, workers would feel like they had more choices. If a company offered a shitty employment contract requiring that the person be in the office 5 days a week for a job that was easily done remotely, the worker could just say “nah” and choose a different job. It’s the same for all the other things that Americans complain about: vacation days, parental leave, sick days, etc. All of those could be things that are up for negotiation, or that employers could offer as a competitive advantage if the power balance were more even.

Even if you think these are things that should be fixed by laws, that’s also down to concentration of wealth. The wealthy control the government, and so the government passes laws that are friendly to them. If the difference between the richest and poorest were more reasonable, regular people’s votes and opinions would matter.

Ok, I haven’t really looked in years. Did they change the privacy laws, or did Google just change how it was collecting pictures?

You might think that, but try using Google’s Street View in Germany. Almost the entire country is unavailable due to their privacy laws.

Sure, but that’s not how it tends to work. That’s why there are all these stories about singers being mistreated by their record labels. The record labels could just license the works from the artist. But, that gives the artist some control. Record labels much prefer a situation where they’re fully in control, and own everything the artist produces. It’s typically only the top 0.1% of music acts that are so powerful that they’re able to take control over their own output and license it instead of simply assigning the copyright.

I’m sure it would be the same for modelling if there was a copyright to someone’s body. The modelling agency wouldn’t want to risk that the model could go to a rival agency. A standard modelling contract would then involve assigning the rights to the model’s body copyright to the modelling agency, and only the most powerful and in-demand models could possibly resist that and keep their rights and only license their images.

This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can’t protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.

Your voice and body aren’t typically seen as creative works. They’re just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a “creative work”, any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.

But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body’s copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn’t even take a selfie because she’d be infringing on the modelling agency’s copyright.

Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany’s photographic privacy laws for example.

If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn’t matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone’s nude photo for personal use. The issue isn’t the copyright infringement, it’s the privacy violation.

He became famous for fixing computers, mostly Apple products, while complaining about how bad Apple Genius bars were, and how unfair Apple’s business practices are. I can respect that, and it was good that someone was speaking up about it.

You’d expect someone like that to be pro-regulation, anti-monopoly, pro-union, etc. But, it does seem like his motivation is more libertarian, and that’s what makes me worry.

So, it’s a distributed system, big deal?

Thanks. In theory if I do change my mind and run Steam on my HTPC, it should work even if I don’t use Bazzite. But, for now, I’m going to aim for keyboard control and Kodi.

What feature is that?

Stablecoins? The best that you can hope for is that they keep their promise not to crash. And sometimes they do crash and people lose all their value. They’re like having cash, but much, much worse.

The price of a particular token has nothing to with how blockchain works. It works.

Blockchain is just an incredibly inefficient distributed database. Of course the price of a token has nothing to do with an incredibly inefficient distributed database. So what?

What I mean is that the technology is mature and adopted by a large number of independent users

That doesn’t mean it isn’t a speculative bubble.

it doesn’t yet have mass adoption because the user experience is not yet seamlessly integrated into legacy systems

Or it doesn’t have mass adoption for the same reason that legacy systems don’t accept payment in tulip bulbs.

I’m guessing you’re a fan of Better Offline?