GPL isn’t the only open source license. This comment is beyond bizarre because it seems to imply that all open source software is GPL? And of course when software is licensed as GPL, that license can be enforced when someone breaks it (like your example). The original comment never mentioned GPL, it was about when something was licensed ss free. So when you give an example where it wasn’t licensed as such, what was the point?

Honestly, I don’t care about design changes in android anymore because whether good or bad they’re just going to change it for change’s sake in no time anyways

deleted by creator

Peak computing.

*upgrade to

Not in an meaningful sense connected to the technology at all

Blud does not know what BitLocker is

Spez is going full Musk. It’s actually insane. Like… Holy shit.

I’m praying for Reddit’s downfall here, because if companies are able to get away with this shit the internet is going to get oh so much worse in the near future.

I’d disagree here. To me it seems like YouTube isn’t a monopoly because Google is being monopolistic with it (if you do have any examples of this, please show me) but rather because of the ridiculous scale and expense of such a project. The infrastructure to support something like YouTube at the scale of YouTube is insane, and I doubt many organisations or companies have the ability to even dream of it, not to mention the extreme network effect with something like YouTube. Google doesn’t have to be monopolistic (I’m sure they would be if there were viable competitors, sure, not saying that Google’s a saint) because it’s almost impossible to compete just in sheer complexity and cost.

It’s kind of like how the entire semiconductor industry is dependent on lithography machines from one company: ASML. But that’s not because they’re being anti-competetive, it’s because their products are insanely, extremely complex, precise and advanced. Decades upon decades and billions and billions of RnD.

Lol yeah. 100% profit would mean literally no operating expenses.

^Most ^economically ^literate ^Lemmy ^user.

The point of a 100 dollar merch hoodie isn’t that you get a 100 dollars worth of hoodie. It’s that you support the artist. A less expensive hoodie means less for the artists. That’s kinda the point of merch…

Largely this is probably true. One large benefit for the consumer with streaming music over buying it is actually that it is cheaper. Significantly cheaper if you listen to a bunch of different things. So if everyone has moved to a method of listening to music that costs less then there has to be less money available to artists (all else being equal).

Even if 100% of streaming services’ revenue went to artists it could still be less money.

The problem isn’t Spotify itself, it’s the business model of streaming being way too cheap.

Ah yes all those millionaire artists. Poor rich artists. Everyone knows all artists are rich. Right?

Did you… read the comment? It wasn’t about the streaming platform owners.

Or Xitter

Just listen to the radio then instead of complaining here?

For when you want to sleep in sub zero temps!

Clock speed isn’t improving that quickly anymore. Other aspects, such as more optimized power consumption, memory speeds, cache sized, less cycle-demanding operations, more cores have been improving faster instead.

This is clearly aimed at existing Microsoft customers wanting to use Linux for different purposes

Because they aren’t making much money? Considering this isn’t based on profit but revenue, that’s a pretty significant fine