Oh it very much is, and I’m in no way advocating for it. I just see this discourse a lot online, and I never see the actual reasons why it’s still in such heavy use talked about anywhere. So yea, that’s the actual why behind their huge marketshare despite their shitty tactics.

You totally can create assets for another platform, but frankly, no one is even close to the level of integration between apps as adobe. Some apps like davinci resolve, and Affinity apps are just now getting to be as good as a standalone adobe app, but there’s still nothing that has the cross-app functionality like Adobe does.

Like for example updating a PSD file, which automatically updates after effects templates it’s used in, which automatically updates premiere projects that use that template, for example. Even just making motion graphics templates for use in a video editor is clunky at best with other apps. Sure you could do it manually, but time is expensive in these industries, every second counts.

To answer your question, or the extension of your question “how to we get creators out of this walled garden”, the answer is not better software, or another alternative. What will really fix this issue is better open source standards for formats. Adobe has the benefit of making their own, while nearly every other platform relies on file standards created decades ago that are too inflexible to support these use cases. Just my two cents.

Yes, creative jobs near universally provide licenses to creative cloud. Aside from companies not hiring people without that experience, the amount of saved assets and templates, along with the deep integration between apps makes the prospect of a full “migration” a ridiculously expensive prospect.

The value in these assets is not just in video files or pictures you can easily migrate to another app. It’s the complex scripts and templates that allow creatives to make custom branded content on the fly. Like a lower third that adjusts styling depending on the name you put in, and auto resizes to fit the text, etc.

That’s what they are saying though. These shouldn’t be thought of as “rules”, they are suggestions near universally designed to point you to the most relevant content. Ignoring them isn’t “stealing something not meant to be captured”, it’s wasting time and resources of your own infra on something very likely to be useless to you.

The law that passed congress, as written, explicitly gives the sitting president the ability to delay the ban by executive order.

Server hardware isn’t free. At the end of the day, SOMEONE has to pay the bills. Either you are the customer, or the product. If you insist on being the product, you don’t get to be surprised when platforms focus on the actual customers that actually pay the bills, by enshittifying the platform.

Zigbee devices are a pretty small minority of the larger IoT landscape. Most consumers are likely to have more wifi or bluetooth only devices than zigbee (at this point in time). The notable exception being Hue bulbs.

Apple is pretty much the only company in the smart home space right now that not only allows, but requires that devices be able to function locally, without having to call home. They CAN call home, but they continue to work just fine locally if say, the internet is down. It’s a central tenant of their homekit standard.

There are multiple other browser startups in development that are not Chromium based. Like LadyBird (which is completely independant), and Zen browser (which started as a FF fork)

Well it has to go somewhere, you can’t just take in water forever with nowhere for it to go. So either it’s non-potable water being returned to its source, or it’s closed loop. In either case, it’s not really a problem.

It doesn’t use water in the sense that it is consuming it. It “uses” water in the sense that it is temporarily in a datacenter, gets a little hot, and then leaves the datacenter. I don’t even think a lot of datacenters use actual drinking water, instead taking water directly from a river, warming it slightly, and putting it back in said river.

Not to say I like AI, or think it’s a good thing. But this phrase that’s been going around just bugs me, because it’s really misleading. We should be focused on the ridiculous amount of energy it consumes, not the water it temporarily uses.

The answer to this question is quite simple, because Google (excluding the Pixel line) isn’t making the actual phones, just the software. The actual manufacturers (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, etc) are taking Google’s OS and putting it on their phones. This case mostly hinges on Googles behavior being monopolistic to them, not to the end consumer.

On the other hand, Apple make both the OS and the Hardware, there’s no manufacturer they’re forcing the app store on, so the same rules don’t apply here.

As far as I’m aware, all donors are public, and have been for quite some time. Anyone can get exact numbers down to the dollar of each contributor a major politician took money from.

Sure, but the difference here was that all those companies were offering something different. Some had better results than others, a better ui, more accuracy in certain niches, etc. But 99% of AI companies now are all effectively reselling the OpenAI API. They aren’t making an effort to differentiate themselves at all. It’s as if Google was the only shop in town, and everyone bought all their search data an algorithms to slap their logo on. That’s just simply not sustainable at anywhere near the scale it is now. This won’t be a 3-5 year decline, it’ll be a 2 month crash.

This. I am so tired of hearing “the wheels of justice turn slowly”. If justice isn’t able to address a problem for so long that the perpetrators are allowed to continue perpetuating the same behavior an entire election cycle later, the justice system has failed, straight up. This is unacceptable.

Discord isn’t a social media. With platforms like facebook, you’re still paying for all your storage, just not with money. There’s ads all over the platform, and all your content is data mined to be sold to advertisers. Discord doesn’t data mine (to my knowledge) OR run ads. Would you prefer a higher limit at the cost of having ads all over the interface? The AWS bill has to get paid somehow, nothing is free.

This was my core point. I don’t consider a business raising prices or gating features as a direct result of those features increasing their cost as “enshittification”. Stickers being paid, custom emojis, etc, that doesn’t cost Discord anything to provide, making that paid is enshittification; But if the feature itself costs the business actual money to provide, does everyone just expect them to eat that cost forever, in a lot of cases for absolutely no revenue from the users?

Calling out businesses for not giving stuff that costs them money away for free just, doesn’t fundamentally make sense to me. Why is it just expected of Discord that they pay to store all your large files? A lot of “freemium” services like GMail recoup some of that money by mining your email for data that it can sell to advertisers, or eating the cost in an attempt to lock you into an ecosystem where you’ll spend money. Storing files on Discord is neither of those things.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of services are enshittifying, and making their services worse so you spend more money with them— but adjusting your quotas and pricing to reflect your real world cost of business is not that. To frame it as though you are entitled to free compute and resources from companies that don’t owe you anything comes off as just that, entitled. The cloud isn’t free. If you want to use a service, you should pay for it if you can.

I don’t see this as enshittification. It’s a real thing that’s happening, but raw storage is expensive. They pay for it directly. Unlike artificially limiting features that are “free” to them, this genuinely isn’t, it’s not even really super discounted for them on the backend. They’re likely just paying for a series of S3 buckets.

This news is from over a month ago, and conditions have materially and dramatically changed since it’s publication. Regardless of the intent, posting this without noting a critical detail (it’s age) is at best incredibly misleading, and at worst intentionally subversive.

I van totally believe that it detects AI generated content 99% of the time, that’s trivial. What I really wanna know is the false positive rate. If I write a program that flags everything, it’d have a 100% hit rate. It’d also however have a crazy high false positive rate.

Hey so most of us are against this nonsense, republicans haven’t won the popular vote in well over a decade. We don’t really have a say in the matter, and haven’t in a pretty long time.