richmondez

I dunno, calorie restrictions has tended to lengthen lifespan in other organisms we’ve tried it on.

Now all restaurants are taco bell.

Why have content on the web at all if it can’t be viewed by anyone? Even if generated with an intention to generate profit, there is no opportunity to do so if no one is looking at it.

And if everyone blocked ads and couldn’t see sites that insisted on advertising, how would that work out for the websites?

If you are going to worry about archival then when reencode it at all? Just remux the content from the dvd into a suitable container and be done with it.

The whole idea of copyright is a granting a state backed monopoly which is the antithesis of a free market as I understand it.

Easier to keep shares online 24/7 with a dockerised we app vs a desktop application I need to be logged in to a system for it to run. Best of both worlds would be a Nicotine+ like desktop fronted app that talked to the server component, but I don’t think there is such a ui app for slskd.

Rocky now is what Centos used to be, a downstream rebuild of Redhat Enterprise. Cento Stream is now a rolling release and is pretty much RHEL unstable.

If you want to accomplish a noble cause like preservation I don’t think it’s disingenuous to also satisfy some personal desires along the way. Easier to get people on board to do it if you do.

Downloading has never been stealing to be fair, that has always been emotive framing for copyright supporting propaganda.

People can run a self hosted search engine/indexer with bitmagnet, how are they going to be taken down?

I felt the /s was implied but clearly enough people actually believe that linux is only for people who master arcane command lines that it could be taken as a genuine belief.

Finally linux will have parity in useability with windows.

Not really, because it doesn’t guarantee any specific individual in that population has any of the populations likely traits, it’s only useful in aggregate for things like prioritising screening for certain genetic conditions for people of particular back ground. It’s useless to determine if someone will be an excellent sprinter or a fighter pilot because ultimately you still have to test every individual anyhow and it doesn’t really tell you anything about the “tree” of human evolution which is really a bunch of thick branches all tightly fused together into an indistinguishable single branch.

It’s because there aren’t distinct populations like you perhaps imagine them being, it’s more like a smeared colour pallet where one area might be a bit more red or a bit more blue but it’s hard to say a specific area is pure blue. The distinct features or populations exist as statistical probabilities based on likely ancestry for a given area. Any given individual in a population probably doesn’t express all the “unique” features, but over the total population those features are most prevalent.

Regarding Neanderthals and denisovian populations, they were probably more like what we’d call subspecies in other animals than truly distinct species from modern humans, isolated long enough to build up some unique genetic markers but not quite long enough to be fully separate.

Doesn’t matter if not everyone is traveling far to reproduce, it only takes a few people to introduce a blob of diversity into an otherwise isolated population and suddenly all their ancestors become contributors to that areas gene pool. Without repeated introductions it won’t form a large part but it will form part. For example most people have direct neanderthal and denisovian ancestors and it’s not estimated that pairing between modern humans and those populations were all that regular an event and yet their genes are everywhere.

It’s worth noting that distinct lineages only really happen where there is reproductive isolation and that especially in the modern world no one has a “pure” lineage. Instead you have genetic composition that might have a larger influence from one ancestral population over an other.

Doesn’t Anna’s Archive mirror libgen amongst other things?

Maximising their return on investment presumably figuring that the increased fee will bring in more money despite some customers cancelling.

You are right my argument was predicated on the price rise being justified by piracy not the cause of it. If they don’t like ESPNs pricing model can’t they license their content elsewhere?