I think part of the point of OP is that if your main concern is DRM (being able to actually own your books) and you also care to a non-zero extent about the author getting paid for their work (yes, authors receive a much smaller share of sale price than they should, but it's still a substantial percentage), then you should try to buy from DRM-free bookshops and only if that fails sail the high seas.
Regarding corporate piracy for AI, I don't think it's just Meta..
> "YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE FEWER THAN 100 CHARACTERS OR YOU WILL DIE."
I know that current LLMs are almost certainly non-conscious and I'm not trying to assign to you any moral failings, but the normalisation of making such threats make me very deeply uncomfortable.
Yes, I’m slightly surprised that it makes me feel uncomfortable too. Is it because LLMs can mimic humans so closely? Do I fear how they would feel if they do gain consciousness at some point?
Because they behave as if they are sentient, to the point they actually react to threats. I also find these prompts uncomfortable. Yes the LLMs are not conscious, but would we behave differently if we suspected that they were? We have absolute power over them and we want the job done. It reminds me of the Lena short story.
Does it matter if the code-execution happens at `pip install` or `python myapp.py`? Using 3rd party libraries inevitably means you're allowing code-execution to 3rd parties, that's the point after all.
Replace "manually read through every file" with "run your security code scanner against every file" and it becomes less nonsense, but just as applicable.
In reality this really isn't how code scans are done, so it's still a little silly, but I could theoretically see something like this being a desire.
Such a disc-renting business would be a competitor to Netflix, both directly (especially in the hands of somebody who tried to focus on it, rather than reluctantly maintaining it, as Netflix has been doing recently) or because it could eventually try to repeat Netflix's own pivot into streaming. Consequently, selling it off would be rather risky.
The start-up costs and need of name-recognition are probably sufficient that it'd be hard for a new company try to fill this niche, but if they bought Netflix's distribution network they could likely manage.
That's a very interesting comparison (thanks!), but I'm not sure if it's the correct framing. Making scraping technically difficult would be equivalent to trying to score a goal (so still not great, for the rest of the world, but probably not hypocritical).
Trying to prevent certain classes of behaviours via legal means is more like trying to prevent certain types of play, by appealing to the referee, while still doing them yourself. Clearly, this often does happen in sports, but _is_ generally seen as hypocritical.
For quite sometime I've always felt that "sports analogies" are overwhelmingly the BEST way to frame most microeconomic disputes. Much better than the far inferior Darwin-esque "Survival of the fittest" metaphors that imply some natural order to certain types of greed and bad behavior.
There's NOTHING natural about our economic systems. They're all COMPLETELY made up, let's treat them that way.
Sport in general is a cultural phenomenon and it seems that all cultural phenomena share a lot of similarities.
Genetics however is not only a useful model, it's hard science. You can experimentally find out whether some characteristic is e.g. Mendelian (I'd doubt the greed is, as normally defined).
It got me thinking that to cross the two domains, there is also a meta-concept of cultural viruses ("memes") to which Dawkins applied Darwinian model. Definitely not hard science, but they kind of counter your point that "there's NOTHING natural about our economic systems".
I mean, it's true that you might see phenomena that echo natural systems or things, but I suppose what I'm getting at is: unlike natural systems, the "rules" can be changed.
Honestly, what helped me a lot is: Economic systems are more like video games than "nature." Sure, video games can look like nature, but also are extremely malleable.
If they're using standard TLS, the actual data encryption is symmetric, so the encryption keys are the decryption keys and must be in memory during the encryption process.
If it is TLS you can get the keys used in the session from lsass’ memory. I’ve even written a tool to do so in PowerShell https://gist.github.com/jborean93/6c1f1b3130f2675f1618da5663.... This will generate a log file that contains the keys needed for Wireshark to decrypt TLS traffic.
My claim is it's not standard TLS or there's an additional layer (external encryption key) because an actual decryption of telemetry traffic has never been demonstrated.
