The essay was a thought experiment based around the popularity of the so-called "sharing economy" at the time, not a WEF strategy document and certainly no government's policy.
Even the author of the piece said it was not a description of her vision of the future, but intended to start a discussion about technology.
But it's been picked up by wackaloons around the world as part of some overarching conspiracy theory.
it's because it's so easy to simply blame the ills of society on some illusory few pulling the strings behind the scenes. It used to be the migrants, or blacks, or the chinese (still is apparently) or the japanese...and now, it's the rich/shadowy figures etc.
The actual truth is that the collective actions of everybody leads to certain outcomes - today's outcomes. It can't really have happened any other way.
Please don't dilute the argument by comparing racial groups with the ultra-rich.
The (ultra-)rich form a class in the classical Marxist sense - a group whose interests naturally align, and they work together to further their interests.
There is deliberate government policy behind what's going on with housing - free money for the rich, which they can in turn invest into speculative assets to make yet even more free money.
Then they ensure that their money has weight by putting said money into housing, pricing out common folk, and building new units to serve as price control to preserve the value of their assets.
Then it's a good thing that the World Economic Forum are not government and do not have lawmaking powers. It's essentially a lobbying firm. I wouldn't worry too much about random slop they publish.
The specs for this steam machine say HDMI 2.0, in the past I used a pulse8 HDMI CEC USB dongle with a computer which was also HDMI 2.0 iirc. I was using a 1080p projector with it but their website claims 4k support: https://www.pulse-eight.com/p/104/usb-hdmi-cec-adapter
I recently replaced a shield with an Ugoos Am6b+ running coreELEC, which works okay and supports some stuff the shield doesn't but I miss being able to run some android apps easily. I wonder if the new steam machine will support DV.
If you want that you won't want this steam machine, HDMI 2.0 can do 4K60 HDR at 10-bit, but only with chroma subsampling (4:2:2 or 4:2:0) (not full 4:4:4).
I want to research a topic, so I do a google search about it. If 100% of the search results are readable to google, so that they are indexed, but unreadable to me, due to paywalls, the google search is useless.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but paywalled articles in search results are bad. If they want to be indexed they should have to offer that same indexed content to anyone browsing the index.
I don’t like paywalls as well, but in principle payed content is justified, and if one is willing to pay for relevant content, isn’t it better that Google allows one to find it? Maybe Google Search should have a switch “show only non-paywalled results” (paraphrased) (I’m sure they could figure out which content is paywalled if they wanted to), but personally I would probably still prefer seeing which sources exist even if they are paywalled.
While I believe in journalism, I'm pretty appalled at the state of modern journalism. There have been a few big fully televised court cases recently, e.g., Depp v. Heard, and I was stunned at how poor the media coverage of them was. As I was intrigued by the legal system, I watched tens of hours of raw footage of witnesses, lawyers and judges, and I was amazed at how watching the raw footage revealed how incredibly biased and superficial the journalism coverage was (on all sides). As this experience showed how untrustworthy newspapers can be, I'm really not aware of any newspaper/journalism (maybe Private Eye? Or Bellingcat?) that is worth reading, let alone paying for.
I guess it might be a catch twenty two. Low quality -> low income -> low quality, but the sadness of such a dynamic does not make me want to pay for an inferior service.
If you're doing serious research you pay for the paywall. It's not unreadable to you, just like a coke isn't undrinkable to you because you have to pay for it.
No I don't, I disable JavaScript and read what they served google in the first place.
If I went to a public water fountain and found that someone had turned it into a coca cola dispensing machine, I wouldn't be happy and wouldn't pay to use it.
"Journalists" creating pay walls, using SEO tactics to push their articles into my search results, and then trying to extract rent don't deserve money.
You despise the people writing the content you want to read, at the same time that you are demanding to access their works for free. Do you also work for free for any stranger?
No, I don't want to read their content. I want to find an answer to my search query.
If the search results are full of paywalled articles that claim to have text relevant to my query, but won't show me the article because publishers are trying to extract money from me, the publishers of those articles have made my task harder and shouldn't be rewarded. This is a form of spam.
In this case I think your beef is with Google and not the paywalled sites. A newspaper is going to do whatever it takes to keep the lights on, and if that means forcing people to pay, so be it.
For Google, they have made a product decision about how to treat paywalled content. They don’t care. It hurts the user experience but the days when Google cared about improving their search experience are long gone.
There is always a free source with the answer somewhere. The trouble comes when the free sources are pushed far down in the results by legacy brands.
When this happens, I will continue to pretend to be google to access the content they are pushing. If publishers want to change this behavior they could try not letting Google index it, so I don't need to see it in my search results.
Your argument boils down to "I want free stuff", as I see it. Okay, but why in the world should Google care about what you want in the search results then? You do not bring any value and will not bring any future value.
For other users, they see value in having paywalled results if they are the best results, because they do not have a block against paying for content.
If you for example search for a movie on Google, they'll show you paid options to watch it on streaming services or rent it from streaming services. That's good and what should be expected from a search engine.
Paying for stuff is how the world works. If a restaurant boasts about having the nicest steaks, you're not going to get a free steak just to be sure that it's good.
But I really think it is time for a better way to pay for content and articles instead of having to subscribe to each source.
I don't think you understand my argument as you are making a second food analogy (first coke, now steak). Please read my response to your first food analogy as it applies to both food analogies.
Information has always been paid for, whether it's news, books or magazines. If you expect for something to be free just because it's found on a search engine, I don't know where you got that from. I think my examples for music and movies that I've given in this thread are worth considering.
It's like if a friend of yours takes you to a nice Mexican place. Why would you expect to get a burrito al Pastor to eat for free, just because you eat for free when you visit relatives? Nobody said it would be free.
It's your assumption that everything behind a google link ought to be 100% free (ad supported). Other people disagree, and Google does not advertise anywhere that their list is free content only.
> Google does not advertise anywhere that their list is free content only.
Google does advertise that they index based on the same content that's available to anyone viewing the page, and has policies against presenting a different version of the page to their crawler versus what you're showing to visitors.
It's splitting hairs at this point, but anyone visiting the page can view the same content as the crawler – if they pay.
Should Google also stop indexing Facebook, since Facebook puts a login wall for people to access their content? Should YouTube (ie Google) ban movie trailers, since it's just a tease for paywalled movies? The iTunes store let people listen to 30 seconds of a song before purchasing at the paywall. Was that wrong?
> Should Google also stop indexing Facebook, since Facebook puts a login wall for people to access their content?
Yes - I thought they already did? (I know LinkedIn edges around this by putting up a login wall only if you have a cookie showing that you'd logged in previously).
> Should YouTube (ie Google) ban movie trailers, since it's just a tease for paywalled movies? The iTunes store let people listen to 30 seconds of a song before purchasing at the paywall. Was that wrong?
A free sample of a paid thing is fine if everyone knows that's what it is. It's when you bait-and-switch by offering something that seems like it's free to start with that it's a problem. Like imagine showing a movie in the town square and then 10 minutes in you pause it and tell everyone they need to buy a ticket or leave.
No, it's not bait and switch. A book store has an index of books they sell, that doesn't mean they're free. I expect a high quality search engine to deliver paid results if they are the best results.
Should Google Maps remove businesses that charge for their products and services from their search results as well?
I wouldn't expect that at all, search engines search the content they have available to proffer it to you, that's the job.
If by clicking on the thing it does not have the content I searched for (how am I even certain I get it when I pay you?) I would call that result bad.
If you want to charge for stuff that's great, I recommend it, and if you want to give out a free sample or an index that's great, but it should be the same to all comers.
NES Tetris has a weighted randomizer where it is less likely to get the same piece twice in a row (if the same piece is going to be served twice, the second is rerolled one time). So it is possible to get the same piece twice in a row but less likely.
Modern uses random shuffles of the piece order (put all the pieces in a bag and draw random pieces from the bag until the bag is empty).
