lad

It’s going to be one hell of a mall then

Only third party sync, I use Syncthing for that, works great most of the time

1. What could’ve fit in a screen of text should not be a video at all
2. I save videos for later all the time, I just watch them never
3. If some information is not visual-first, and not entertainment, if it may be important to people and should be spread, it also better not be a video. Maybe accompanied by a video to make use of audience reach, if you already have a channel with an audience, that is.

The IP owner can print more, but if the owner is gone or legally unclear, then yes. Although I don’t think this was the real intention, because greed looks like a simpler reason and fits

You’re right that there is a lot of good content, too. The problem is that a platform doesn’t care as long as you stay and watch, also you’ll need quite a lot of effort to find your own good content. So when I come to YouTube for something and end up watching more, I always know that I failed to YouTube trying to rip me off

If only I could get addicted to something socially acceptable in under 35 minutes, like doing chores, or at least maths

Maybe you’re right and it could work. I’m afraid there’s always a share of sociopaths this will not affect, but this may be seen as impossible to fix anyway. What I am also afraid of is that the speed of changes is glacial in this model, and sometimes people are bullied into suicide in the course of mere weeks

Yeah, trusting someone to make right decisions is hard because this trust usually ends up being betrayed sooner or later.

Regarding the first part, I meant that we as a community can’t put enough pressure on a bully to make em leave, if that bully is part of the community that supports em.

And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?

Except for the countries that have anti-hate laws that are deliberately vague and specifically used to jail anyone who is disliked by the government. China and Russia come to mind as examples, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.

Besides hate-speech, I’m not sure how much should be censored really. China does a lot of censoring to ‘protect’ their citizens from everything, I’m not sure this would be a good thing even if that really was a goal.

And protecting children from traumatising content looks like another good thing to do, but under that banner I usually see governments doing whatever they want without caring about children past using their image.

With that I agree

What’s the joke about? Does Ireland block everything that comes from the Netherlands?

saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

Reminds me of how Xiaomi password protected smart kettle was only password protected in the UI. I think, it’s an industry standard nowadays 🥲

TL;DR: if something not from Amazon is delivered by Amazon Spain, it’s a PITA and the recipient has no control over delivery.

I recently had one delivery sub-contracted to Amazon Spain, it was a nightmare. I was not able to choose a different date (only the original delivery company could, but they didn’t answer me at all), not able to choose a pick up point (for the same reason), not able to correct the address that was slightly messed up. They emailed me that the parcel is up for delivery in 10 days, and delivered it next day after the email, probably 1 and 10 are close enough.

It’s a lucky thing they even called me, I was away for several more days and couldn’t receive the parcel. The support said they will usually make three delivery attempts and then send back, but that they may do more or less attempts. Also they responded that I should give the seller some time to respond to my inquiry about moving delivery date, but they will continue to try to deliver and maybe fail and send back.

By the way, the original delivery company never replied at all, if I were unable to finally catch a delivery I would be out of luck. Also, the delivery window is 10 AM to 10 PM, no details, just wait and hope

This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.