All of the „benefits“ you listed are why I hate native apps with a passion and avoid installing them whenever possible.
I don’t want your mindshare, notifications, spam and all the other bullshit no thanks
Anecdotal, Dominos has a website I can order food from and it’s insanely good experience to use it in basically all aspects I can think of.
I love ordering food from them just because the experience is so good. The food is a different story, but man their UX is something everyone else could learn from.
Yes, their UX is beyond good.
Webapps, CLI, order from some vehicle dashboards, Uber-like delivery meet point GPS capture,
but it's pretty important to note that they filed paperwork and patented a pizza tracking progress bar, keeping other pizzerias and apps from utilizing what's essentially the "Slide to Unlock" of any Internet-based food ordering.
It made perfect business sense, even if just to keep someone else from locking them out of the feature...but..had to mention how broken things are, that other pizza chains or stores couldn't/can't/won't offer proper modern order life cycle tracking due to this.
I think you definitely made the right decision.
As a user and a developer I hate native apps with a passion, so I for one can’t wait for the browser supremacy to take off.
Blackberry might not be around anymore but 24 years of operation and 85 million users (at peak) is nothing to scoff at.
I would be glad to have founded such a „loser“
2 days a month isn't a big deal at all. I'm in the UK, and regularly travel anything from 2 to 8 days a month to a role in Germany and the Netherlands.
I think you missed the point, it's about distances, and logistics, not days. Flying from UK to NL/DE doesn't sound particularly impressive: relatively short, non-hostile checks, accessible airports, wide selection of flights. Actually, it's more or less equivalent to getting to Bilbao from Iberian peninsula area.
Seconded. They should at least specify North Africa. It's a big continent, you won't catch me dead flying from South Africa 12 hours up once a month for only two days.
Why should they specify anything? That you are not willing, it's ok. However, I know of people from California doing this on a monthly basis (traveling over Europe). For some people it's ok.
Copyright needs reform desperately. It has been outdated and not fulfilling its purpose for decades now.
This is a first step by Japan in a good direction IMO.
I hope it will have some influence on the rest of the world.
I’d bet that is not true. I grew up with Napster, Kazaa, Soulseek, Limewire and friends and they allowed me to find so many fantastic musicians and helped start to shape my tastes in music. When I was older and had a job, I supported many of these musicians by buying their albums (and much less frequently, going to one of their concerts).
The thing about art, IMO, is that it does a great service for humanity in giving us hope, purpose, and something to live for. When you treat artists as a cost to just minimize, you make it harder for any of them to succeed at making a living doing their work. I believe that the effects of the very low streaming royalty payments will have a chilling effect on professional musicians making a real go of it.
I'm not sure it works out that way in practice. I use YouTube Music primarily, and I used to buy music from Google Play on occasion, but since they've gone all in on streaming, I can't even purchase lossless audio from them anymore.
I may sound like a broken record but copyright needs reform.
It does not fulfill its purpose and DMCA is just one symptom of many other issues that stem from the steaming pile of garbage that is copyright in the 21st century.
Someone needs to file DMCA notices for the big corpo stuff. Do it as a big swarm and get the whole websites down. Only then will there be actual action to reforming it.
AI so close to breaking the current copyright and many of us are very excited to see this finally happen! We just need not to snooze on the replacement and not fall for copyright propaganda which is already invading social media.
> The Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I believe it is to promote the progress of science and useful arts and I think that the way modern copyright works runs counter to this foundational goal.
"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - Not sure if this the the parent's view of the purpose of copyright, but seems to have been what the original constitution writers had in mind.
By that measure though, it seems the US has had pretty good results. We have a flourishing scientific research and arts community regularly producing amazing things. Certainly at least as good as anywhere else. And the other countries that also do well in these areas have similar copyright systems for similar reasons. I don't know of other countries with substantially different copyright laws/systems that produce similar quantity/quality of science and art.
I'm not saying it's perfect, just that before we so roundly criticize something we should at least have in mind what we are trying to achieve, and some reasonable idea of an alternative that would achieve it.
Do you have some ideas of how the US copyright system has failed at the stated purpose, and how something else might work better?
What does "limited times" mean to you? I think the copyright term has been extended for far too long and 75+ years is not "limited" in any sense of the word. It's essentially a human lifetime- meaning we won't live to see things enter the public domain that were created during our lives. My main issue with modern copyright is the egregious length of time it lasts.
Imagine a world where people can freely access learning materials. Sure they can do it now through „illegal“ channels but many don’t and that is negatively impacting all of humanity.
all forms of copying are morally permissible (without commercial use), because some forms of copying are permissible and there is not a logical distinction between various forms of copying.
People would also put less time and effort into creating learning materials. If someone wants to create freely accessible learning materials, they can do so today. And some do!
There are two forces at work. The existence of copyright on the one hand means that the effort of creating learning materials is split between freely available and not freely available materials. On the other hand, it creates more (financial) incentives to create learning materials. Maybe removing copyright would result in more learning materials to be freely available (or maybe not), but at the same time it may also mean that less high-quality learning materials will be produced (due to the lack of financial incentives). It’s not clear-cut in my opinion. In addition, I believe that one should have the right to monetize good material that took a lot of effort to create, without being immediately plagiarized by the rest of the world.
But a copyright reform wouldn’t mean there is no way at all for you to monetise your great quality learning materials.
In my ideal world it would mean you can monetise them for a reasonable time and after that time they become a public good.
We could also come up with better monetisation strategies for such materials.
But what really grinds my gears for example now my government pays private companies/publishers to produce learning materials which are then sold again to the schools - why are these materials paid for with public money aka taxes not freely available for everyone?
I do agree private people should be able to monetise their work but this should never extend to materials that are paid for with taxes. Those should always be public goods. And I can see no other reason than greed and corruption why that is not the case. I am sure there are other reasons that I am missing since I’m not that deep in the field - but then again I just want everyone to be able to access the wealth of information easily that I (as someone fairly familiar with web technology) can access freely in multiple ways. As long as that is not the case I will stubbornly keep clamouring for copyright reform, happy to hear other ways to achieve that goal though.
