Half of young Norwegians are wrong

Any one got other FOSS game tips?

You’re thinking of MusicBrainz Picard, the music file tagging software that is powered by MusicBrainz, a music metadata encyclopedia. ListenBrainz is a separate project, though it also makes use of the MusicBrainz data.

How the hell am I supposed to know which parts of that picture contain bicycles?

We don’t want your shitty products :)

Most people who make art don’t make any money from it. Some make a little bit of money. A small number of people can afford a living just by making art, and just a fraction of that actually get most of the money that’s being earned by artists, and then of course there is a lot of money that’s being paid for art that never reaches the artist. The business as it is is not working very well for anyone except for some big media companies. The complete lack of commercial success hasn’t stopped a lot of artists, it won’t stop them in the future. Thank god, because it wouldn’t be the first time that after decades of no commercial success whatsoever such an outsider is discovered by the masses. Sure, lack of commercial success has stopped others, but that’s happening now just as it will happen without copyright laws. If donating to artists out of free will would be the norm, and people knew that that’s the main source of income for certain types of artists, then I’m sure a lot of people would do so. And aside from private donations there could be governments and all sorts of institutions financing art. And if someone still can’t make a living, then still none of that could legitimize copyright in my view. We should strive for a world where everyone that wants to follow up on their creative impulses has time and opportunity to do so, irrespective of their commercial success. But there should also be unrestricted access to knowledge, ideas, art, etc. Brilliant research, photography or music shouldn’t be reserved for those who can afford access. The public domain should be the norm so that our shared project of human creativity can reach maximum potential. Copyright seems to me to be a rather bizarre level of control over the freedom of others. It’s making something public for others to see, but then telling these people you’re not allowed to be inspired by it, you can’t take a free copy to show others, you can’t take the idea and do with it as you please. It’s severely limiting us culturally, it’s harming human creativity. And at the same time it’s hypocritical. Artistic ideas are often completely based of the ideas of others, everyone can see that the output is the result of a collective effort. The Beatles didn’t invent pop music, they just made some songs, precisely copying all that came before them, and then added a tiny bit of their own. And that’s not a criticism, that’s how human creativity functions. That’s what people should strive for. To limit copying, is to limit humanity in it’s core. Again, human creativity is very clearly a collective effort. But despite this fact, when someone gets successful suddenly it’s a personal achievement and they are allowed to ask for a lot of money for it. Well my answer is, yes they are allowed to ask, and I am very willing to pay, but they shouldn’t be allowed to go beyond asking, they shouldn’t be allowed to restrict access of something that has been published.

Yes, that would be best.

That’s right. They can put their art up for sale, but if someone wants to take a free copy nothing should be able to stop them.

That’s an opinion you can have, but I can just as well hold mine, which is that restricting any form of copying is unnatural and harmful to society.

I don’t like AI but I hate intellectual property. And the people that want to restrict AI don’t seem to understand the implications that has. I am ok with copying as I think copyright is a load of bullocks. But they aren’t even reproducing the content verbatim are they? They’re ‘taking inspiration’ if you will, transforming it into something completely different. Seems like fair use to me. It’s just that people hate AI, and hate the companies behind it, and don’t get me wrong, rightfully so, but that shouldn’t get us all to stop thinking critically about intellectual property laws.

Open source government, eh? Don’t know if this would work completely but I like the direction.

Is it true that there is no truly independent web browser or are there others?

That’s true, but if you’re letting it get to angry heated bitter arguments, that’s at least partly your fault. With an open mind and a friendly attitude you can mostly avoid those.

wow that’s bleak. Very few people around me share my political beliefs, but they certainly don’t disgust me. One of my colleagues beliefs every conspiracy in the book, she’s at the total other end of the spectrum when it comes to most arguments, but I’ve also noticed that she is the sweetest nurse I know, treating patients with empathy and compassion. Rather than coming to the point where you avoid arguments, I think people should develop the ability to have differences of opinion without being revolted by the other. An opinion doesn’t define who or what someone is in the slightest.

Are arguments really that bad? I think this is a rather cynical point of view. I don’t want to reach this stage.

Reading can make people smarter. Reading dumbed-down shit probably won’t have the same effect. This apps prevents people from expanding their vocabulary.

On a side note. I think we should never force children to read old stuff, we should convince them that it’s actually worth while. Forcing it on people will just make them reject books even more. There are so many things to read, let them read something that has their interest, something that has a direct benefit to them if they want. If you care about cars, read about cars. It should be about helping kids discover that reading is fun and rewarding.

Imagine what learning would be like if teachers and programmers from all over the world collaborated in making the best possibles resources for learning, and all of that would be in the public domain so anyone from all over the world, rich or poor could use it to learn. It seems such a big opportunity and once we start building it would only get better over time. Good to hear France gets it. Can’t we, as in the EU, put some funds into such projects?

That was an interesting read. Thanks. Do you study economics as part of an education? Or did you just dive in to it out of personal interest?

Thanks for the elaborate response. To me the ‘taxes don’t pay for public infrastructure’ seems bizarre. Are you saying public infrastructure shouldn’t have to be payed for by taxpayers, or that it isn’t payed for by taxpayers? I can understand you making a point about the first given your MMT explanation, but taxpayer money IS actually being used for all sorts of public infrastructure, isn’t it? A government could use money creation for every project, but they don’t, they also collect taxes…

I would also worry that the risks of (hyper)inflation are being downplayed in this theory. But too be fair I’m not an economist, nor do I have knowledge about MMT, so I’m really not the person to refute any of this. It’s interesting and I’ll look in to it with an open mind. Thanks

There is a lot wrong with what you’re saying. Taxes don’t remove money from the economy, because it all goes back into the economy. Tax money is most definitely used for all sorts of things including for infrastructure. A government can’t responsibly create endless amounts of money. The amount of debt a country can have should be related to the size of the economy. Where you’re right is that taxes are a way of redistributing money in order to influence society in all sorts of ways. Which can be good or bad.