DropInIn

Then what you wrote was very poorly constructed because that's exactly how I read it...

Defaulting to "prove it" is not anything anyone needs to "answer for"....

Otherwise you're demanding that we accept every ridiculous idea that comes up... literally demanding people take suggestions of "Jewish space lasers causing fires in BC" and "the earth isnt real its just a TV show stage for aliens and the catholic church are thier partners" as legitimate possibilities rather than the highlt improbable, if not impossible, insanity they are....

And?

That argument is essentially: Workers should suffer so those who already were of means can profit more.

You can't open a restaurant unless you're already doing well, with large amounts of capital etc.

Drivers are generally living oatcheck to paycheck with zero available capital.

You do see why I feel zero sympathy, right?

And that's ignoring you're actually arguing for drivers to do more work for the same or even less pay....

Oh it wasn't a comment on HN users but people in general.

So often someone will spout off on a topic as though they know a great deal but when I start actually trying to have discourse on it I discover they actually know very little.

Dunning-Krueger type thi g I'm sure, but it's just so common as to be mentionable.

Show me the full yime jobs as food delivery driver that would meet the demand for such jobs and I'll give you $100

Prottip: they don't exist

Delivery drivers always got paid jack and made the majority of thier income from tips. It was always a bad industry and Uber etc just make it worse by taking an additional cut and causing businesses to outsource to fewer total workers across the industry than would be employed/were employed under the traditional model where any business that wanted to do delivery had to do so by directly employing someone.

Both cost so much more than dieect order and pickup that it's getting close to cheaper to take a cab to get it direct from the shop, right?

I know I have never ordered from either because I was immediately aghast at the massive markup over the regular price for the products...

I only watch a couple documentaries a year and I saw it the year it released....

Frankly I'm a little saddened so few who consider themselves "in the know" about these things didn't at least know of the doc...

If I write a book with a creature I call trolls and they are giant blue hairy with small shark like teeth, a "design" with nearly no association to extant trolls, and that is then appropriated by damn near everyone your position is that they didn't engage in theft, right?

You could see how any author would find such an assertion absurd, right?

Just because it's legal doesn't change what it is. We have plenty of types of "theft" in the _colloquial_ sense that are not theft under law.

Really....

You'd think that having a long history of content with traffic to said content over that time would be a key differentiator in ranking pages....

The issue here is very clearly with how Google et al are operating, effectively intentionally favoring blog spam over real content producers.

I wasn't calling you out, I was just naming my go to pdf reader install on android. :)

Those operating the estate have a fiduciary duty to the stakeholders, meaning they can't pursue litigation where costs would exceed potential value nor when it would have a more significant negative impact on value than protections.

From this most instances of infringement do not justify legal action as the parties in violation have little to no money (fan fictions etc. Can't get blood from a stone) and in many cases the pursuit of legal action would "harm the brand" in a fashion that would far exceed the value (a 1% reduction in consumer engagement is hundreds of thousands if not millions in value).

Copyright is not the same as trademarks, you don't have to pursue every single violation in order to maintain protections.

Tinfoil hat time:

They know at release about many of these bugs but between incentivizing upgrades and selling the resultant bugs as backdoor to 'three letter agencies' there's simply too much money to be made by not disclosing/patching the problems before third parties release discovery of the problems.

Sounds like your not actually arguing against my point but rather just arguing against IP law.... those are two very different things....

Cost isn't why I don't have a Foss phone.

Ecosystem fracture and uncertainty of LTS are _The_ reasons I don't have a Foss phone. Full stop.

A coordinated drive behind a few hardware designs and an independent central org (think GNU/FSF) that effectively guarantees at least one OS option exists for the device lifetime are the keys to the goal.

Having that allows others to build thier variants.

We can't have a Foss phone built using phones which are explicitly built for a specific OS (android) and without having the drivers for components open source (to ensure anyone can patch it etc).

And look at the drive to "dumb" phones currently occurring specifically because people are tired of the "this device doesn't support the current version of android" bs... there are far more people in the potential customer pool than ever existed with PCs (where you have historically been able to upgrade for a decade+ before hardware was simply unable to support the software).