I think unhappiness is the default of human state. Or rather discontent. Its probably wired into us bc if we were ever content we wouldnt procreate, try to attain financial success, etc
I don't think so. Everyone was a lot happier 10-15 years ago when the culture felt less fucked. I think people can't feel happy if they don't feel basically safe, and the world's problems are so incomprehensible, and solutions to them see so impossible to imagine, that there is a background unsafety overlaid on everything, even if one's immediate conditions are pretty good.
the difference is that (d) is not fraud and (e) is fraud, lol. Duh.
you seem to be thinking of the legal system like some kind of programming language / logic paradigm and it is not that and never has been
most likely ad-blocking would also be considered some sort of fraud (or rather: companies would block using their services if the ads were not seen, and then circumventing that would be regarded as fraud) except that it is not politically/socially tenable to do that at all.
It’s rhetorical. Setting aside the obvious credit card fraud because I didn’t know that was a factor when initially asking the question, no it’s not clear to me that using bot accounts to consume a digital streaming service is fraudulent or morally wrong the same way assuming a fake name to use someone else’s credit card is.
I don’t care if a service seeks civil remedy for any damages due to a breach of contract.
I also don’t fancy a future where people have to be worried about criminal penalties for spinning up a bunch of agents to automate something that enriches them.
Is buying likes and gh stars fraud? Is it okay if humans click the star button? Is it okay if a large distributed workload does it?
Anyway my actual stance is that it looks like in this case it’s not the bots that are the key focus of this matter so my earlier comment is mostly just a digression. And that I’d hope this case would be ruled similarly if for example human users were paid to stream his songs, however that would be adjudicated.
Maybe not legally, but morally... yeah? It's definitely gross, in the sense that I would like to see it eradicated as a system.
"Cheating" systems benefits people in the short term but corrupts the, like, fabric of society in the long term ... when cheating is normalized and you have to cheat to get ahead then everything kinda vaguely sucks all the time. People often end up in a posture vis-á-vis big corporations where it feels like cheating them is morally okay because the corporations are cheating in a systemic way, or otherwise don't deserve moral recognition because they're too diffuse and machine-like... I empathize with that. But we shouldn't turn around and therefore _not_ interpret the cheating as cheating. It's still bad. But if you do it "at scale" and make a business model out of it and then get caught... well you're an idiot. I agree that it feels weird that this was a prison sentence instead of a big fine. I imagine it's a question of magnitude: it was more than skimming off a profit, it was basically at the scale of 'criminal enterprise' and we ... don't like those.
> I also don’t fancy a future where people have to be worried about criminal penalties for spinning up a bunch of agents to automate something that enriches them.
It's obviously a question of what you have the agents doing.
> And that I’d hope this case would be ruled similarly if for example human users were paid to stream his songs, however that would be adjudicated.
well first you have personal experiences like that
or rather: you have personal experiences like whatever your experiences are like, not like theirs, and then you write about them if you think anyone else would also be interested.
I mean, PC is fine. I don't know what would be stressful in creative. Either you feel like creating something elaborate, in which case it's easy, or you don't, in which case what's the problem? There's no reason that you 'should' be motivated to make stuff like that.
Google doesn't make their wallet available to iPhones. They don't even make their wallet available to open-source Android. It requires GMS which is only (legitimately) available to commercial Google partners.
Hell, google wallet will accept pdfs so you can just make your own pretty pass in photo shop and just host it in there. No need for a fancy developer certificate or rendered barcodes.
OK, it also accepts jpegs and bitmaps so feel free to use MS paint to make yourself a snazzy retro pass and add it to google wallet without any developer certificate required!
Although perhaps I'm misunderstanding and the idea is that each wallet device requires a separate implementation and this is just Apple's version? I guess that makes sense. But if the product is "easily make passes for your business" and then they are Apple-locked, that is obnoxious and anti-consumer and people should refuse to use it.
Apple Passes are a feature built into Apple Wallet, which is iOS/watchOS/Safari-only. Google has their own version in Google Wallet that runs on Android (and only Android with Google Play Services if I recall correctly). Samsung has a version too and there are many others. I believe they all operate off .pkpass files.
Apple Pass Designer is just a tool for customizing what the passes a business is giving to its iOS customers looks like. It's macOS-only (Apple barely supports anything not-Apple). I assume the customizations won't translate to other apps unless those apps add support, but the passes should still work.
reply