noptd
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms.
Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite.
Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept?
Who has the power to make that determination?
After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in?
---
Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.
Generic example: millionsandmillionsofpeopleliveinthiscity
Easy to share aloud, but long enough to protect against being brute-forced.
However, I'm sure some folks would be tempted to add something like "designed and implemented a distributed task scheduler and execution engine for generalized asynchronous jobs utilized by X number of devs across Y teams" to their resumes.
Should LG be able to charge you every time you watch a movie or show on your TV?
By your logic, streaming services should be paying TV manufacturers for using their "IP" when displaying video to customers. Hogwash.
Well that's your problem right there. That type of spam boosts a number of activity and usage KPIs and increases engagement.
Reddit has even been caught using bots to artificially build out new subreddits by Google translating and reposting existing content from other subreddits to give the illusion of popularity in order to bootstrap new subs.
Why would they want to cut down on any of that when it would affect their bottom line?
I do, and I suspect many others would like to know as well - please share!
It's on that point that we, and I'd imagine the GP as well, strongly disagree.