Bcuz the performance is usually not fuzzy and also the law only applies to certain jobs -- you would not apply the law to salesmen or customer support agents.
Salesmen making bad deals that boost their numbers and then don't make money in the long-term is one of the first things you learn when you work in an org that sells in the enterprise market.
Ur in a software bubble, there are millions of sales jobs where you sell a simple product and the only thing that matters is sale volume and maybe "dont be a dick". The really strategic sales process we employ in tech is the exception.
Salesmen are absolutely perfect example. They quite often have even greater incentives as they can directly financially benefit. So selling products that are not needed, that are over priced or entirely misrepresented is extremely common.
ok... how do you measure the performance of a coding assistant? Counting the lines of code written, bugs closed, PRs reviewed, some fuzzy measurement of quality or something else?
Disagree, the ideal agentic coding workflow for high tolerance programming is to give the agent access to software output and have it iterate in a loop. You can let the agent do TDD, you can give it access to server logs, or even browser access.
> The solution, one that Netflix would probably benefit from, is to offer to adopt more of a YouTube approach to carriage–allow anyone who produces video content to show it on Netflix. Pay them based on views.
The relationship is inverted; netflix pays IP owners a fortune to get the right to show stuff.
The core probe is exclusivity agreements. Honestly think they should be illegal. Disney should not be allowed to choose who has access to view the content they’re releasing to the public.
The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain, so it's reasonable for the public to require wider dissemination of their works.
Disney still gets paid if their works are shown on Netflix; they choose exclusivity to build a moat around their streaming service, regardless of the quality of the service, which is a form of consumer abuse (albeit a mild one in the big picture).
Disney still requires you to disclose your age and gender to use the service, last I checked. This is concerning, and would be punished by a competitive streaming market were it not for exclusivity.
There's some precedent for this: Back in the 40s, the movie studios were forced to sell their stake in theaters due to antitrust issues around exclusivity. Streaming services owning studios feels like the essentially the same situation.
> The right is that of copyright, one that is granted by the public to incentivize the creative arts. Disney and other rights holders need to hold up their end of the bargain
Are you contending that Disney isn’t producing new content because they are permitted to control dissemination of their works? That doesn’t square with either reality or incentive.
Besides, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that on top of advancing the "Progress of...useful Arts" that unlimited dissemination is required to promote that goal. On the contrary, the Constitution allows Congress to provide authors the "exclusive Right to their respective Writings" -- which directly contradicts your argument.
Copyright is not a property right. It is a state granted monopoly that is supposed to provide incentives. It should therefore be designed to maximise incentives.
In any case lots of property rights have limitations and exclusions. Land might be subject to other people having rights to enter it (so you cannot exclude them), or mineral rights might be owned by someone else. There are legal restrictions in many places on what you can do with it. You can require a license in own some things (e.g. guns on most places).
As an attorney who specialized in IP practice in law school, I can tell you that your understanding of what a property right is is absolutely wrong. If you told a judge that copyright is not a property right, they’d stifle a laugh and advise you to come back with a lawyer, and your lawyer would, in turn, advise you to keep your legal opinions to yourself.
Both are rights to exclude enforced in law, which is the essence of what property law is. As the owner of physical property, you can exclude others from occupying or using it (with the violation being trespass). As the owner of intellectual property, you can exclude others from copying it, making derivative works, etc (with violations also enforceable in law).
Yes, both types of property rights are subject to limitations, either by law or by contract (as in the easement and mineral rights examples you gave). But that doesn't change the essence of what they are.
Legal definitions are often not the same as plain English, and wording used in legislation is often politicised.
The nature of copyright is that it is a monopoly right. It is almost indistinguishable from letters patent (e.g. in the case of the KJV Bible in the UK). I am less familiar with US law but I believe US copyright law is based on a clause in the constitution giving the federal government the power to grant monopolies?
A monopoly right and a property right are the same thing with different names. As a landowner, for example, you have the right to kick people off (evict from) your property. You have both a de facto and de jure monopoly to exploit your land.
The US constitution confers to Congress the power to grant copyrights and patents in Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The operating word here is "exclusive" which, yes, is a monopoly right. But again, it's not different in essence from a property right, which is also a monopoly right.
Music has mandatory licensing: you can play any songs on your radio station as long as you pay the fixed, standardized fees. And yet the music industry is still alive
Not strictly true. An artist can refuse to license their work to a given station. That never happens in practice, but politicians being refused use of music has happened.
> An artist can refuse to license their work to a given station.
Via what means?
First, radio stations in the USA aren't required to pay royalties to a recording artist, only to the songwriter via a Performing Rights Organization (PRO) like ASCAP or BMI. It follows that recording artists don't even have a say in whether their recordings can be played on the radio.
Second, songwriters don't have any control over public performance once they've licensed their work to the PRO. It's all or nothing. Songwriters can withdraw their works from the PRO, but then they have to negotiate with public performers through some other means. Radio stations don't have the means to enter separate negotiations with every songwriter, so they'll likely forego it, which practically means no airplay for artists who haven't submitted to the PROs.
> politicians being refused use of music has happened
IMO, the biggest perk is dependent on the ability to charge at home. If you can, then the price per mile is about half (if Google is right that California rates are about $0.30/kWh) or less than for an ICE. But even if the $/mile were equal, never needing to visit a gas station again is itself the biggest perk.
And sure there are people for whom an EV won't meet their range needs, but probably way fewer than think that's the case for them.
It’s closer to 0.40-0.70c/kwh. My lowest rate is $0.40c/kwh and that goes away insanely fast just doing almost nothing. PGE is criminally priced in CA. I get maybe 200kwh before it jumps to $0.50/kwh rate and will keep jumping.
I don’t have AC. I don’t have anything. That’s just a fridge, computer, and a little bit of cooking. Genuinely have no idea how I even hit 10kwh/day because I have nearly nothing on in this place.
Home electricity in California is about 45¢/kWh. If your F150 mileage is typical, you're getting about 2 miles per kWh. 600 miles would cost about $135 here in California. Meanwhile, a 20 mpg gas car would cost about $110/month at $3.65/gallon.
You must be paying about 4.7 cents per kWh, or about 90% less than you'd pay here.
That would be 1 liter of the active ingredient, not 1 liter of the eye drop. Also I don't believe that 1 ppt of this stuff is harmful when people are putting it directly in their eyes without severe harm.
Yes, but too slowly to matter. Average person consumes 1.5 liters per day of water, so if you live to 100 that's 55000 liters. At 1 ppt that's 1 ng / liter, or 55 ug over a lifetime. That's multiple orders of magnitude less than one drop of the stuff to your eye.
We will know after the drops have been out for over a decade, and actual real-world safety data studies get published.
Meanwhile, Restasis (cyclosporine A) (or a generic) works well, and doesn't have to be applied all day long, just two or three times a day. It does burn the eye initially, but it's not harmful, and the burning goes slowly away over time. It does take a few months to start working.
Maybe, maybe not, maybe like teflon, the real poison is an intermediate ingredient, but I think its bullshit that we're just creating chemicals that linger in our water supply for eternity. You literally cannot find anyone in America without traces of the dangerous variant of the PFAS in their blood stream. Like every sip of water is some ridiculous dupont cocktail and we have to tolerate it because people have dry eyes and want non stick pans. Why cant you just use theratears?
One thing you can be sure of is that the vats of PFAS being produced year after year for this drug aren't going away anytime soon. They're called "forever chemicals" for a reason.
Being dispersed in the environment is not the same as being concentrated into our drinking water supply with each measure resulting in 1ppt contamination of a trillion measures of water.
Largely firefighting foams, industrial and manufacturing, and landfill sources, but it's still an interesting problem. They don't really break down (that's why they're so useful both in a materials science sense and as a medication) which implies they'll stick around for an extremely long time.
You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. If you actually think the scare is overblown, I dare you to drink the whole bottle of that eyedrop.
> You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
I do.
1. "PFAS" is a technically incorrect term.
2. It's ridiculously broad. Teflon is PFAS, sevoflurane is PFAS, and so on.
> If you actually think the scare is overblown, I dare you to drink the whole bottle of that eyedrop.
They literally use the same liquid to FILL THE EYEBALLS after retinal surgery. It's been approved for 25 years. A bottle of eyedrops has 4 milliliters of it, and it would do essentially nothing if swallowed.
The only relevant subdivision of PFAS is by chain length: small, medium, large. Even so, they all accumulate in the environment. Just because you with your short term selfish interest doesn't take any responsibility for the world at large, willing to totally destroy it for small personal gain, does not mean that others don't either. All PFAS are very harmful in the environment because it's like paperclips that keep being made but not ever being unmade. Medium and long chain are also harmful in the human body due to significant accumulation.
Teflon does not get a free pass. It is a toxin. The last I recall, it causes brain damage in children. There is a reason why sane people avoid nonstick cookware.
Don't confuse silicon oxide with a PFAS. It is quite the negligent and hazardous fallacy to put them in the same bucket. One has been around for billions of years. The other hardly has any research, and will take at least a decade more of data and research before we know what's it is capable of.
You are in no way smart enough to understand and consider all the pathways, uptake mechanisms, and consequences that are affected by the PFAS compound across all of biological life. Knowing just one or two over just a few years does not make you competent in it or qualified to make a broad safety comment.
PFAS is to my knowledge the only human-created unnatural class of compounds that does not deteriorate in the environment. So no, the argument applies exclusively to PFAS.
> By ‘consciousness’ we mean phenomenal consciousness. One way of gesturing at this concept is to say that an entity has phenomenally conscious experiences if (and only if) there is ‘something it is like’ for the entity to be the subject of these experiences.
Stopped reading after this lol. Its just the turing test?
One of the primary issues with Nagel's approach is that "what is it like" is - for reasons I have never been able to fathom - a phrase that imports the very ambiguity that Nagel is attempting to dispel.
The question of what it would feel like to awake one day to find that - instead of lying in your bed - you are hanging upside down as a bat is nearly the complete dual of the Turing test. And even then, the Turing test only asks whether your interlocutor is convincing you that it can perform the particulars of human behavior.
The "what it's like" is often bound up with the additional "what would it be like to wake up as", which is a different (and possibly nonsensical) question. Leaving aside consciousness transfer, there's an assumption baked into most consciousness philosophy that all (healthy, normal) humans have an interior point of view, which we refer to as consciousness, or in this paper and review as "phenomenal consciousness". Sometimes people discuss qualia in reference to this. One thing that I've noticed more very recently is the rise of people claiming that they, themselves, do not experience this internal point of view, and that there's nothing that it is like to be them, or, put another way, humans claiming that they are p-zombies, or that everyone is. Not sure what to make of that.
reply