There's this standard that is being worked on by the people working on the Passwords app at Apple (They are active on Mastodon, and often talking about that) which will probably be helpful for this feature too: https://www.w3.org/TR/change-password-url/
It's essentially impossible to write a traditional program that can go through the full process of logging in and changing a password autonomously, without writing fragile site-specific procedures.
How much of that do you think is rose tinted glasses and nostalgia? On paper that doesn't sound too different than Apple Music Radio for example where there's radio shows with local DJs or hosts that talk, play music and have curated play lists by a human editor.
I'm sure other streaming services have the same and curators can pick from a much larger set of music, from any part of the world. More than they ever could at a radio station where they had to order and ship CDs around.
There's also many independent internet radio stations or music podcasts these days which can be launched for little money, don't require a broadcasting license and can be listened to from any place in the world.
I understand the nostalgia angle, but objectively it seems like what we currently have is better and more open on all counts.
It was different as we might listen together to the same station across town. There were TV shows too. Many stations had sort of countdowns of the week's top songs. It was just a different vibe.
The Ed Sullivan Show
American Bandstand
Soul Train
Top of the Pops BBC
One of the guys from Nirvana wrote a good essay on how Billboard destroyed music in the 1980s by consolidating the number of radio markets feeding the chart and allowing ways to trick the top seller lists. Before the MTV modern billboard era there used to be local artists on local radio and eventually one might break out onto other markets and eventually break nationally. Then artists became famous simply due to being good looking, having a catchy producer driven sound and a corporate machine getting them into everyone's ears. Things were a little different from the late 60s to the early 90 and some artists broke out organically.
Here is an example of a station that was independent an influenced early MTV programming during their first couple of years. WLIR documentary, 'New Wave: Dare to Be Different,' chronicles the rise and fall of one of the coolest '80s radio stations.
A funny example of a non-corporate act was the group KLF who hacked the Top of The Pops formula and got onto TV with absurdity. A documentary about them is called "Who Killed the KLF".
Yep. It is mostly nostalgia as there isn't anything better than an AI curating a million songs based on our like/dislikes, but on a macro level, we are at the mercy of people who tune these algorithms.
Are we being 'nudged' to like certain genres or musicians because they are being promoted? Of course, this could happen with a DJ or traditional FM station too, but with centralized AI, you impart that 'nudging' on literally millions of people.
> There's also many independent internet radio stations or music podcasts these days which can be launched for little money, don't require a broadcasting license and can be listened to from any place in the world.
Indeed - radioparadise.com is a quite nice Internet Radio
Eh. I still listen this way. I subscribe to a streaming radio provider in my genre, and there's also a local high school station that plays my genre of music most of the time.
It's much better than what I've experienced with spotify and similar and it's way less effort. I had built a pretty big launchcast preference profile, but it took years of active listening, and in my genre remixes are preferred over original recordings but radio on demand doesn't have them ... you need currated collections, and I'd rather not be the curator.
I do worry about the longevity of the subscription service though... at least some of the channels are very repetitive, it feels like someone set up a currated rotation a while ago that just continues to repeat. They did the sec crowdfunding several years ago and there was a lot of related party transactions that looked too squishy for me, and after the offering expired they did the required years of reporting and its a blackbox again.
It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.
As a business you don't want to serve everyone. That's why many companies after a while raise their prices, even if that prices out the enthusiast market they served at the beginning so they can go further up market.
Often times it does not make sense to serve free users who are often causing more hassle than it's worth. Having a free trial and then either converting users or not makes sense, but serving a user who uses it for a few queries every month ("I check every few months and only do a few searches at most") potentially does not exactly make sense business wise or even warrant the time building that free tier for an audience that's not willing to pay anyway.
Apple just had to open the NFC reader to alternative payment providers in the EU (Like PayPal) so what makes you think Apple Pay and Google Pay would be any different?
Being n% more sovereign is better than not at all. It’s not that hard to switch providers down the road, it’s not the gotcha that some people think that is.
This is nothing new. Remember when the US pressured Sweden into taking down the pirate bay (Very unsuccessfully)? Using global influence to get countries to do something that they would not do on their own has always been the case.
Pretty successfully I would say. Armed police raided the server hosting provider scaring the shit out of some dudes who were just monitoring the power basically. And people went to prison.
Depends on your definition of successful. If the goal was to take down the website that didn't work as it was back online hours after and is online to this day even if the organization behind it probably changed.
To those in the know, it's not really uncommon knowledge.
Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.
You're welcome to look into what those around him said regarding his detention and death.
He is just a well-publicized example.
Many of you here have probably used darknet markets, if so, your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
> Whenever you have control over somebody else's organism, suicide isn't something which makes sense definitionally, even if his own body was used to kill him.
> your vendors are likely neurocompromised as well.
Much of the drug trade is ran less than consensually, as is common knowledge.
Often even people envolved aren't even aware these technologies are being utilized, to those who are, their position is often simple: you do what we say or we torture you, even in protective custody, as surgery isn't really practical.
To be clear, your claim is that 'much of the drug trade is r[u]n less than consensually' via some kind of undocumented, unknown-to-most brain implant that can be used to remotely torture people for non-compliance?
That claim falls apart as soon as it touches reality: there are a _lot_ of people who are involved in the drug trade, now and in the past. At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull (e.g. my dentist does a whole head CT every 5 years as part of the normal process and insurance pays for it). Surely _one_ of those people would have noticed a brain implant.
>At some point, one of those people would definitely have had a CT or an MRI on their skull
The tech is adversarially designed, you're assuming the medical supply chains are not compromised, and are dramatically underestimating the sophistication involved here generally.
You can't even assume the people interpreting the results are uncompromised, are trained to interpret results in the context of adversarial technology, or are even physiologically able to accurately interpret what they are looking at. This has it's roots in military intelligence, it's not a trivial compromise.
There is a long history of militant and/or criminal (what's the difference) usage of adversarially designed brain-computer interfaces that you will not find documented.
Unless you have proper clearance or are involved with one of the parties propagating them, anyway.
reply