CONSUME

I’m not opposed to the idea, but license keys for software have existed for a very long time.

License keys also don’t always represent an application or software, they extend the rights of use beyond the initial purchase.

As a simple example, you can get license keys for Windows that do not change what version of Windows is installed or how it operates. I work in IT, and when setting up remote access systems, we need to buy remote desktop license keys to allow users to connect. You’re not getting anything you couldn’t otherwise, but you’re allowed to have more people connected at a time while the system is running.

There’s similar examples across the board, this is just one that’s pretty fresh in my mind right now. One of my clients is hitting the limit of their RD licensing.

For less complex software, like games, there used to be a physical component, usually an installer disk or something that would need to be validated when the game launches (though disk burning made this ineffective). With digital resources it’s nearly impossible to validate someone has a licence without some kind of license key system in place.

I’ll say again, I see their argument here. I don’t necessarily agree with any of it.

IMO, it’s a challenging subject, and one that we the people, via our elected representatives, should be pushing for legal representation on, by implementing laws that govern how all this works and limiting how much companies like Ubisoft can fuck us over because it’s Tuesday, and that made them mad.

One thing that was recommended to me by someone a while ago, is that, unless you need it for something specific, mount your media in Plex as read only.

Plex has functions where you can delete content from the library from their UI. If you need that for some reason, obviously don’t make it read only. If you’re hoarding the data, and therefore never delete it, or use an external system for deleting files, then RO all the way.

The only caveat to this is if you’re using a local disk on the Plex system, which then shares out the drive/folder for adding new content, in which case, you’re screwed. It has to be rw so the OS can add/remove data.

In my case, as I think may be common (or at least, not rare), my back end data for Plex Media is on a NAS, so it’s easy to simply have the system running Plex, mount that network share as RO, and you’re done. The data on the NAS can be accessed and managed by other systems RW, direct to the NAS.

Since Plex is exposed to the internet, if anyone with sufficient rights is compromised, in theory, an attacker could delete the entire contents of your media folder with it. If you limit RW access to internal systems only, then that risk can be effectively mitigated.

Wait, it’s October?

I can see the other argument though I don’t agree with it.

Paying is obtaining a license to use a product. You own the license for as long as that payment is valid. If the validity of the license expires for some reason, you no longer have rights to use the product, whether you physically have it or not.

The difference is in licensing. Having a license to use a product that someone else created.

This is becoming a much more prevalent theme especially in computing. With physical goods, for the most part, ownership/possession of the item implies that you own the required rights to operate, use, or otherwise possess that item. Usually a license doesn’t physically exist, it’s more of a concept that is inexorably tied to the thing. With software however, the idea of license keys exists. If you have a license key for software, you can use the software regardless of where you got it from. Since the software can be copied, moved, duplicated, etc. The source of the actual bits the compose the software that runs doesn’t matter. As long as you have a valid license key, you “own” a valid license to use the software which you paid for.

With online platforms, including, but not limited to, steam, epic Games store, Ubisoft connect, whatever… They manage your licenses, and coordinate downloads for you, etc. The one thing I’m aware of with steam that’s a benefit here is that you can get your product keys from the program and store them separately if you wish.

The problem is that not all platforms support the same format of product keys, especially for games. There’s no universal licensing standard. This makes it tricky to have a product key that works where you want it to.

There’s layers to this, and bluntly, unless there’s wording in the license agreement that it can be revoked, terminated, invalidated, or otherwise made non-functional at the discretion of the developer that issued it, they actually can’t revoke your ownership of a game, or at least the license for that game.

Application piracy (specifically for games), is when you play something without a license to do so.

They’ve stacked the entire system against you. Using wording in their license agreements that allows them to invalidate your license whenever they want to, and gives you no means to appeal that decision. Setting you up for litigation for piracy by using a software that you paid for when that license is revoked.

It’s an insane thing to happen in my mind and there should be legislation put in place that obligates companies to offer a permanent, and irrevocable, license to software (looking at you Adobe), and also makes it much harder for companies to revoke that license. In addition, there should be a standardized licensing system, owned and operated independently from the license issuers, which manages and oversees the distribution, authentication and authorization of those licenses for them and you, something like humble bundle’s system or something, where you can get license keys compatible with various platforms which can supply the software that constitutes the game you have a license for.

It should go beyond gaming.

Until such a time that the legal part of this is figured out, we’ll be left with an unfair playing field, legally speaking, and piracy will be a way to have the software without a license (which is arguably illegal).

I don’t like this system. I didn’t ask for it. I think it should change. But legally, piracy is still illegal. The system is consumer hostile, and unfair. That fact, in and of itself, should merit something to be done about it. So far, nothing has even been proposed by governments. I’m hoping the EU makes the first move on this, and everyone follows suit. I can see them doing it too.

This I can get behind.

I don’t need it on all my 18650s, but a few would be nice. Also 21700s.

Someone bring this back.

Just keep repeating the same companies, they can pay for relief each time.

I don’t really see a problem.

The sponsorships should be for companies that thrive because they make products that increase global warming (or use them), which is most companies, so I digress.

It should also be an involuntary thing. Getting a natural disaster assigned to you should be a badge of shame, and any company named for it should be obligated to help with relief efforts.

Given the negative PR and cost for providing relief, I’m betting that quite a few would clean things up pretty quickly so they don’t earn the badge of shame. Maybe enough to slow or stop global climate change.

But all of this requires that we care more about people and the climate than we do about corporations and their profits. Since it’s been made clear that the government is basically bought and owned by corporate interests, this will never happen.

The solution is to supplant the existing government with one that actually represents the interests of the people that live in the country, not the corporations.

Killjoy.

Well, if the comparison is between a live instrument and the terrible speakers in the building, unless that instrument is not tuned, damaged, or otherwise not working correctly, the instrument will sound significantly better than anything else you could possibly subject your ears to.

The music selection is largely corporate/business picking something that’s very safe to play, so it’s usually very boring music.

Fair enough. I haven’t used spectrum, so I have no opinion. I’m not in the right country to subscribe to their service, so there’s that.

Have a good day.

It’s that recent. Jeez. Feels like it’s been a thing for months.

Wait, what day is it? WHAT YEAR IS IT?

OH GOD

IMO, the post is centered around proton VPN, and since that’s a public VPN service, it’s the focus of the discussion.

Private VPNs are a very different story.

Yes and no.

Modern HTTPS connections send the URL you are connecting to in the initial hello, so the remote webserver knows what security certificate to use when you connect. A lot of web servers host multiple sites, especially for smaller webpages, and so it doesn’t assume that since you connected to that specific webserver, that you’re connecting to the site that the webserver is hosting, even if it’s only hosting a single site.

This can leak the data to anyone sniffing the traffic.

You can also determine some traffic by IP address, this is for larger web services like Facebook, youtube and other sites of similar size. They load balance groups of IPs for their traffic, all are serving the same data. So if you connect to an IP that’s owned by Facebook, for example, then your actions can be easily derived.

Since the connection is still secured by TLS, the content can’t be deciphered, but the location you are going to absolutely can.

It really depends on a lot of factors.

All ISPs are legally obligated to forward that shit to you. The alerts are not from spectrum, they’re just relaying the information.

Right now, copyright owners do not have legal permission to find out who you are directly without a court order. They would only seek that information if they were planning to file a lawsuit.

Media companies know, from the Napster incident, that such actions can backfire stupendously. It’s rare that they even bother anymore. I can go into detail on why, but I’ll leave it out for brevity.

So they send the notice to your ISP, who is legally obligated to match the information on the notice to the subscriber and forward the notice to you.

For many, this goes to an ISP provided mailbox, which most people ignore the existence of it. Clearly spectrum operates differently.

The notices are from copyright holders who have no idea who you are, and can’t determine that information unless they intend to sue you. So those can be, for the most part, ignored.

It’s not your ISPs fault that you got those. They couldn’t give a shit less about what you do on their service, or what you download. They just want you to pay your bill every month and keep the gravy train rolling.

When speaking to the overall system, there are always inefficiencies with all forms due to the conservation of energy laws.

Similar arguments can be made regarding batteries, as resistance in the wires that connect the cells in a pack together waste power as heat. While overall this may be minimal, the physics provide hard limits here. Unless a superconducting material is made commercially viable without needing to be super cooled, these limits will always be nontrivial.

My entire point is, battery tech has reached a high level of development and there is significantly more we’re trying to achieve with the technology (whether solid state or otherwise), meanwhile, I would argue that hydrogen hasn’t even reached the same level of development as battery technology, yet everyone seems to think it’s a dead end.

It’s hard to argue with the energy density per kg of hydrogen as a material. It’s possibly one of the highest specific potentials of existing technology. What we should be doing is trying to create power from that with as few losses as possible. Fuel cell technology was, in my mind, the first real push in that direction, when it didn’t immediately pay off, we gave up. Meanwhile, alkaline and cadmium based batteries were much worse, but we used them, and continued using them for decades before lithium based batteries became more commercially viable.

I see battery research as looking for the last, most efficient type of battery, while hydrogen isn’t even half way through the possible research we could do on it. Forgetting hydrogen, while it’s in the infancy of the research, for batteries that are very nearly as efficient as physics allows for, to me, is doing ourselves a disservice as a society.

I have no idea what further research into hydrogen will yield. Maybe you’re right and it’s going to go nowhere, maybe not. We don’t know unless we keep trying, same with batteries, same with kinetic storage (flywheel/gravity systems), same with thermal storage… There’s just a lot of material science we can experiment with that wasn’t really something that was possible before now.

I still think it’s worthwhile, clearly you disagree. I appreciate the discussion either way.

Have a good day.

H2 from natural gas is more efficient, but obviously creates pollution. Because of the relative efficiency and the prevalence of natural gas in society, most companies have gone to natural gas conversion to hydrogen, as it’s easier to implement, not because it’s greener.

To touch on it, when I’m discussing economics, I’m talking about the discipline of economics, not specifically the economy. The money economy is only concerned with the dollars and cents of everything, economics as a discipline, considers all factors, both in and out, and the adverse effects of everything, both financial and sometimes not financial (since nonfinancial effects can affect the future financial viability of a system).

I’ll be clear, storage isn’t the debate on hydrogen being inefficient. Hydrogen storage is more efficient than most other storage systems. The materials are minimal, a pressure tank with the appropriate seals and safeguards, and the tank can output 100% of the hydrogen that goes into it. There’s no concern with cycle life, as the system can cycle infinitely as long as the structure of the container isn’t compromised. The waste produced when a storage vessel is no longer suitable, is essentially metals that can be fully recycled or otherwise reconstituted into other items without any degradation in the quality of those items, with few exceptions.

The discussion is entirely around how hydrogen is created, and how it is converted back to whatever energy format that is desirable, such as electricity. Coming from electricity, electrolysis is about 70-82% efficient, with 1kg of hydrogen, which has a specific energy density of 143 MJ/kg needing about 50-55 kWh of electricity to create. The most inefficient part of the system is conversation back from hydrogen to electricity, where internal combustion style generators are common (basically a slightly modified natural gas generator), but less efficient than fuel cells. Fuel cells generally have 40-60% efficiency.

Batteries on the other hand have much higher efficiency, but never 100%. Since they’re generally not self regulating, systems for battery management are required. Charge controllers and voltage conversion (or inverters) reduce efficiency further, but generally battery systems are considered to be better than 90% efficient. The downside with battery systems is the relatively short life of the battery and the large amount of waste produced, in comparison with something like hydrogen.

Hydrogen can achieve much higher energy density and the container weighs next to nothing when empty, while batteries weigh approximately the same whether charged or not.

My main argument for hydrogen surrounds the fact that we’re pretty close. 80% efficiency in hydrolysis and 60% on fuel cells, with storage being significantly cheaper on materials and significantly better with cycles, with much less to recycle when the system is replaced or otherwise decommissioned. You can pack a lot more energy in the same volume of space using hydrogen compared to batteries because it can be significantly pressurized to several atmospheres.

There are benefits here that batteries simply cannot match. If we can get the fuel cells and electrolysis to a level that’s comparable to batteries with efficiency, then hydrogen would really become the better option.

With over 8.2 billion people on the planet, we certainly can research all of these options at the same time. Only a very small fraction is even doing the work right now. That number can increase a lot, but we choose to pursue what is financially profitable rather than purely looking towards scientific discovery. Capitalism at work.

If companies can’t sell it, they don’t care. So it doesn’t get done. We should do it anyways because there’s potential here.

IMO, there’s two main factors at play. First, the speakers in most stores suck. They have to buy them at volume (quantity, not loudness), and install them everywhere. The primary reason they have them is for paging, so they can make announcements and request that people go places. Music just gives the speakers something to do while not doing announcements.

Due to the amount of speakers they buy, and their primary purpose being for announcements, they don’t exactly buy high quality speakers. If the store has existed for a long time (maybe 10+ years), then it’s likely they’re analog, so the quality is also affected by the amps they’re using, and the cables, etc.

As long as the system can still do paging/announcements without issue, the business really doesn’t have any reason to spend money on upgrading it.

For the most part, most companies have connected these to some kind of satellite radio or music streaming system (like Spotify, but more business centric). It’s just plugged into the ancient sound amps for the analog system, often by someone who isn’t an audio expert, so levels are often all over the place, sometimes to loud and blown out, other times too quiet and details in the music are too quiet to be heard.

As long as the speakers still perform the announcements/paging that the company requires, they don’t care if the music sounds bad.

There’s a lot more to say on it for contributing factors, but the main drivers for it are not to play music. With the shift to digital and everything needing to update their music providing device, coupled with untrained people doing the connections for the new music solution to an ancient speaker system, it’s unsurprising that it sounds like garbage.

This is the way.

Depends on the UPS. Many cheap offline UPS units don’t. Anything line interactive or online will.