I take that to mean "we won't let the AI refuse to pay them or otherwise break employment law" not that they could never be fired.

I read that as "it's not worth the negative PR of being associated with AI firing minimum wage employees" compared to just paying them for a year or two.

This is not net neutrality, all network traffic is not treated equally.

Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.

It doesn't meet a perfect theoretical definition of net neutrality, but it's a set of defined legal limits on the extent to which providers can treat different kinds of traffic differently.

Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.

Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).

I guess to me this seems a bit like saying that free markets are the default setting. We’re not in some kind of perfect state of nature. We’re in a complex interconnected society where virtually everything of any importance is regulated to some extent. What you’re saying seems like saying “as soon as you impose one regulation you no longer have a free market”.

This non sequitur strains my ability to assume good faith on your part. We're not talking about markets, we're talking about a utility.

Does your water company bill you differently depending on what you use the water for? Your gas company? Electric? This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.

It’s just an analogy. I can understand if you don’t think the analogy lands, but it hardly seems grounds for doubting good faith.

And err, yes, not everyone is billed for water or electricity on the same terms as private homes.

>This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.

You could leave this out? It’s not the most effective way to bring people round to your point of view.

What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.

Legally speaking that's for entertainment purposes only

You have to add the final "]" or "}" yourself but json strings are free!

h264 is (generously) about 2x as efficient as MPEG-2, granted, but you're smearing those 5mbps across 6x as many pixels.

I would take crisp 480p over a gooey, artifact-softened 1080p for most content.

The only reason I haven't canceled my Plex is because I bought a lifetime pass a decade ago so I literally can't. :/ I almost wish I hadn't specifically so I could cancel it and send that signal.

But yes Plex is quite enshittified now. Would definitely start with Jellyfin or something else these days.

I'd happily sacrifice some pixels to avoid the aggressive DNR and hack 16:9 crop treatments typical of streaming re-releases.

The average person probably only knows the formulas for olivine and one or two feldspars.

And quartz of course!

(Reference for those wondering: https://xkcd.com/2501/)

In my opinion, if you make a $50,000+ bet on an 18 year old's future career, whether or not that bet works out for you is entirely your problem.

Investments don't always work out, tough luck. That's obviously not the same as buying a sandwich.

My comment was specifically about the question of morality, not about whether it's a wise business decision.

I think you both are a little bit right.

If you are in a casual agreement with a friend and don't keep up your end then it's immoral.

If you have a contract that specifies expectations and consequences, then it's just a business deal.

The (predatory) school loan business works from contracts and they are obligated to keep up their side only as much as you are yours.

The real immorality is not accepting the consequences embedded in the contract to which you both agree to, it is that the United States has such a business in the first place.

Well actually second place I guess. When the student loan business started it was not predatory. But it got horribly abused, by the borrowers who would declare bankruptcy gaming that system, schools who raised rates because they knew loans were available, and the lenders who astroTurfed children into believing that it was a good bargain to exchange $200,000 at high interest for a Art History degree

Its not immoral to not be able to pay your debts, but its immoral to not pay them when you are able to.

The psychological burden comes from the endless harassment and attempted scamming from the lenders. They don't just accept your IDR and let you quietly pay $60/mo forever. It's 20 years of endless threatening calls, "urgent notices," surprise debits that must be fought. They'll delay or outright "lose" your annual recertification paperwork every year, reverting you to to some outrageously high "default" plan.

Plus the threat that a hostile administration might come in and change who qualifies for IDR at any point, which just happened and is causing a massive spike in defaults.

Best way to find out is to buy $10 of OpenRouter credits and try the models for yourself.

From my experience doing this, they're nowhere close, but it's entertaining to check in once in a while.