Sandra

Sandra, 1 year ago

Y'all know I'm the world's best programmer but I wouldn't've been if it weren't for reading that Refactoring book 🫡

Such a correct and true way of thinking about programming like God intended 💇🏻‍♀️

Sandra, 1 year ago

@Aradayn

https://idiomdrottning.org/stance_on_copyright#who-can-make-copies-of-the-work

"I want to abolish this aspect of copyright completely: the monopoly on making copies. No time limit, no nothing, just boom. Not 14 years, not 14 minutes."

Although the idea of not having to read, watch, or listen to anothing newer than 1995 does sound very appealing.

Sandra, 1 year ago

@Aradayn

It is difficult to intellectually honestly argue for the time limit.

Either copyright is morally wrong in which case it's also wrong the first 14 years.
Or copyright is morally right in which case it's also right even after the first 14 years.

I think it's wrong so ergo even 14 years is too long.

The only situation where 14 years is good is if copyright happens to be morally exactly neutral (which, OK, all things are morally exactly neutral on the nihilist's canvas), and if a limit is "good for society" since it "promotes creation" during the limit period and "enables creativity" after the limit period and a perfect sweet spot limit time could somehow be calculated. I am not convinced of those premises. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sandra, 1 year ago

@Aradayn @apophis

"I really bristle against a “solution” that is painting us deep into a corner, which is all-too-common." ← https://idiomdrottning.org/perfect

All the problems with copyright as economic scarcity, especially in the age of big models as means of production becomes even more centralized, are still going to be there for the first 28 years. The 14 year thing came from the age of the printing press and was an industry regulation, not the age of the floppy where it's a consumer regulation.

We are on the threshold of an era where people wouldn't have to work as hard, where robots could help us do tedious and dangerous stuff, but since it's in the hands of the owner class workers are going to be even more out of luck. Big money has no problem sidestepping copyright with loopholes like ML or just acquiring their way through it like how Disney bought Fox, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and Henson.

"Yes, I mean, pragmatically copyright works at some basic level to assure that artists are compensated for what they create."

I'm an artist and I'm not getting paid so obviously it does not assure that.

Ultimately there are three ways the world could work:

• to each according to need
• to each according to ability
• to each just crumbs as ownership gets concentrated

Copyright is one of the many perverse incentives in capitalism that steers us towards the latter of those three.

First they divorced sustenance from existance by renaming it "compensation". A li'l kick in the head as they shout "earn your keep here".

And with copyright they're divorcing compensation from creation and tying it to copying. It's expensive to make a big fancy movie. It's like three cents to male a copy. That's a problem for the quid-pro-quo model mercantilist model market capitalism was developed from and is ostensibly still based on.

They're so married to the idea that "growing a carrot is expensive so selling it should cost commensurately, and if a farm makes money selling carrots, a studio should make money selling movies". But a movie cannot be sold since it is intangible, an expression. Wrapping chains on that expression is desctruction of copies that could exist. https://idiomdrottning.org/mittens

Solution: maybe not tie compensation to copying and instead crowdfund the creation process? Crowdfunding was invented by the left → https://web.archive.org/web/20160517205031/https://firstmonday.org/article/view/673/583 but of course central capital hijacked the idea with corporations like Kickstarter and Patreon.

Even the capitalist system are realizing the futility of trying to "sell" digitally locked down singles of movies and songs and we're seeing the rise of streaming. Instead of paying for one copy of Gaga and one of Bach, you pay for an account and get both. Great for consumers but dangerous as it means that we as society place even more of our infrastructure in the hands of big capital (and they get to control our machines with libraries like Widevine that give corporations more power than uid 0). I grew up in an era where the road network, phone network, train network, water network, postal service, health and education, even television, where all that was owned by the people. That kind of centralization had huge problems and is very far from my ideal model but with capital's ownership concentration we get all the bad parts of that world but now we can't even vote about it. The phonebook was a public project while Facebook just eats the public.

Copyright is central to the owner class—and of modern colonialism (if you look at the world's exports & imports it's like we get goods from them while only selling nothingness back, only selling abstract ideas, "you give us sugar and diamonds and we'll let your kids look at Mickey for an hour—ah, ah! ☝🏻only look, no use!").

"Then, people who grew up with the work can riff on it and make new things! That's useful for creativity." So you know people thought it was awesome how the Iron Man story continued in Hulk and Captain America. Shows the appeal of shared universes. But those movies had to be made by the same studio since people didn't wanna wait 28 years for the sequel. Shared universe storytelling is becoming the purview and USP of big IP.

And that is gross.

Sandra, 1 year ago

@rml

I agree with the article that delimited continuations would be a great addition that would solve most of what we need continuations for much more cheaply and expressively and disagree with the articles claim that we never want or need undelimited ones.

"Truly call/cc and the fix-point combinator Y are two sides of the same coin." ← yeah… as was clearly visible in the first papers about continuations & CPS that GLS and GJS put together in 1975 🤷🏻‍♀️

@screwtape @ldbeth

Sandra, 1 year ago

@screwtape

"I'm not really sold on the things continuation passing allows (easily) that common lisp's evaluation model doesn't though."

Continuation passing, emphasis on the passing (CPS) is the easiest way for CL to implement continuations (as demonstrated in PAIP and On Lisp) but Scheme doesn't have to use continuation passing because we can always access the current contiunation as a value (and that can be, but doesn't have to be, inplemented through CPS).

Continuations are great, I use 'em all the time and depend on them.

https://idiomdrottning.org/call-with-current-continuation

My value predicate contract / dependent type generics are implemented using continuations:

https://idiomdrottning.org/match-generics#require

@ldbeth @rml

Sandra, 1 year ago

@grunfink

Ah, it started working! 👍🏻👍🏻

(I meant entering an URL like https://comam.es/snac/grunfink/p/1669992232.088389 for example, as opposed to just the posts you see from following someone)

@kensanata