imtyler's comments

Electromagnetic locks are better suited for gateways that are open by default. I can't imagine why someone would create a vault dependent on electricity.

That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of crimes that would go easier with no power. Perhaps taking down cameras.

>"The only way to attempt to improve the situation is show respect and hope it's eventually reciprocated."

With who? I don't have a neighbor, I have an endless string of rotating strangers. I understand that bad neighbors have always existed, but that's not what's happening in my specific situation.

Anyone and everyone has potential access to the house 30 feet or so from which I sleep. Anyone and everyone at any time. It's a big change.

My nextdoor neighbor sold their house last year and now it's an Airbnb. Despite the fact that I live in a house in a normal residential neighborhood, I'm now forced to live next to a hotel. And I have no say in the matter. Super frustrating.

I've read people talking about how Airbnb screwed the host or the guest. But few people talk about how it screws the neighbors.

I understand what's you're saying, that any digital scarcity is by design and therefore artificial.

But damn I wish my Steam library had a resale value.

>"They're yours..."

Yes and no. There's an important distinction between _having_ something and _owning_ something. You can have possession of figures carved from contraband elephant ivory. But if anyone who was inclined to care about such things decided to take action, a court could compel you to destroy it. Same thing with any illegal item.

But these are all "ifs and buts." Hence why it's a matter of principle and not practice. At the end of the day, most people are fine with "buying" a book that they don't own as evidenced by the sales.

In this scenario I think the biggest issue with losing an account is the ability to aquire future purchases. But like I said, it's more a matter of principle for some. You own a book, you don't own a digital copy of a book.

I assume this violates the EULA of most retailers and subjects your account to possible deletion. Not saying that it's likely, but DRM restrictions seem like a matter of principle to some people. Even if you can strip the DRM you still don't legally own the product.

The quote is right there:

"Radio (and TV) are uniquely obnoxious"

Ads are obnoxious. That's not unique to radio.

What? Are you implying I don't deserve my job or I shouldn't exist?

It's funny but my original post started with: "I know a lot of people are going to see this and react with an 'oh well'."

I'm an actual person, you know. I'm alive. I exit. My existence is not less important than yours... In my eyes.

But that's not a product of the medium, to be fair.

Aw. I want to like this, but I work in radio.

If you remove ads then there's no reason for the broadcaster to keep going.

I'm not trying to be controversial, but if you remove profit how can the business continue to exist? And if terminating the business is your goal, why? People seem to have a grudge against radio and I honestly don't know why.

It's my livelihood. I'm not seeking sympathy, but I am curious.

And we're discussing it because it affects us (the public,) what's your point?

How is not paying for content a huge expense?

My opening phrase ("As far as I know") was intended to imply that I am not an industry insider. These are indeed assumptions.

Are they unreasonable assumptions in your eyes? May I ask why? They seem reasonable to me.

Yes, 'no overhead' was incorrect. I meant 'significantly less overhead.'

Idk necessarily if the issue is 'who are you paying' as much as it is 'what are the people I'm paying actually contributing.'

And in the case of YouTube the answer seem to be: we created and refined some amazing video compression and streaming techniques. Now that that's done we just want to profit indefinitely?

AFAK, Traditionally it was:

Producer pays for content and profit is derived from distributers that charge for access to the content. If people don't view money is lost.

YouTube is different:

Creators pay to create their own content and are imbursed as they gain views.

YouTube, the distributer in this case, has no skin in the game. They have no overhead, it's all profit.

Perhaps that has something to do with it. It feels somehow like you're paying the middle man for nothing?

So, an average person can make a living wage on income from YouTube/Twitch royalties?

"...she’s also scared of taking days off, mainly because she knows it’s a job..."

At risk of sounding cold, why would anyone think YouTube/Twitch is a job?

Honestly confused. Is there money there? Like, for an average person, aside from the platform celebrities?