There are those of us who look forward to exactly that: the ability to own our participation in the content we consume. When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory.
Yes, ad blockers work. But they are susceptible to the tragedy of the commons: it's always advantageous to install an ad blocker. Then, as they proliferate, companies must insert more and more intrusive ads. This encourages more people to get ad blockers.
Allowing a tiered economy for content will enable those who wish to pay to do so, and those who don't to see ads. The ads can become less intrusive because the companies are no longer playing a cat-and-mouse game with their inventory. That should decrease the incentive to use an ad blocker, allowing that revenue stream to stabilize.
"When you pay for content, you are the customer. When someone else pays for the content, you are the inventory."
Subscribers to the NYT: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?
Subscribers to Netflix: are they the customer or the inventory (or product)?
I really don't see why companies wouldn't treat them as both. So many businesses are operating on a subscription model, and still treat their "customers" as databanks ripe for mining and selling to their "real customers": advertisers and other purchasers of user data.
The 21st Century has really become the century of spyware, and I don't see paying for content as a reliable way for consumers to avoid being a target.
Thanks for the feedback! We've recently implemented some pretty big performance improvements in the filesystem, including prefetching files, caching them encrypted to your local disk, and journaling for writes (allowing us to sync them over some period rather than blocking on your network connection). If you're still experiencing poor performance in the filesystem, please file a ticket on github.com/keybase/kbfs or contact me on Keybase chat (keybase.io/jzila).
But the basic model is that when you share or chat with someone@twitter, that content is only encrypted to your devices. When that Twitter account posts a proof, and announces that proof on a Keybase account, Keybase's servers will notify your devices including a link to the tweet. Your device will independently verify that the cryptographic proof is validated by the keys of the Keybase account claiming it, after which it'll re-encrypt the keys to that data for the newly verified Keybase account.
It's great and beautiful. However, it isn't yet as powerful as Jenkins Classic. So if you've been using Jenkins for a while, there's a good chance that Blue Ocean doesn't have the power/granularity you'll need.
It also switches your default GitHub links to Blue Ocean. If you only want to try it out, you'll have to tell your users to switch their Notification URL back to Jenkins Classic in their user configuration page. (If there's a way to do this for everyone, I'd love to hear it.)
Is there anything in particular is preventing you from moving to Blue Ocean? I'd love to know!
As for the Github links, as you mentioned a user can set their preferred UI (Blue Ocean or "Classic") in their user preferences easily. We do understand that this might be difficult for some administrators to swallow and are looking at a global option to turn that behaviour on/off [1]
First of all, congratulations on an excellent job with the design and UX of Blue Ocean! There's tremendous potential here.
I hate to use HN for bug reports, but since you asked about roadblocks (thank you for asking!):
For one, we use build triggers to ensure downstream dependencies are tested as well as the current project. I would have expected some kind of pipeline integration between those in BO (displaying the triggered build pipeline in the parent pipeline as a whole), but instead BO actually makes it more difficult to get to downstream builds.
- Nodes run in parallel don't have their hierarchy preserved: e.g. parallel(a: {}, b: parallel(c: {}, d: {})) all get collapsed into a, b, c, d parallel nodes in the BO pipeline view (as you can see in the bo_downstream_build screenshot above).
Can you elaborate? It's just a plugin at that lives at /blue. In my experience it doesn't remove functionality at all. You can still use "normal" Jenkins just the same.
And you can easily switch between Blue Ocean and the Classic UI at will. Just look for the exit button at the top of the screen to get back to the equivalent page in classic then click "Open Blue Ocean" in classic to go to the equivalent place in Blue Ocean [1]
Exactly what I was thinking. When I access Jenkins, after having installed Blue Ocean, I'm still greeted with the traditional UI and the "Open Blue Ocean" button.
I do see the option in my user settings page but I don't understand what it's for. What is this "notifications URL"?
Jenkins issues all kinds of links to itself via email, Slack, HipChat and Github to refer to runs of pipelines or the homepage of jobs. When we do this, we send you to a well known URL that will redirect you to your preferred UI - Blue Ocean or "Classic" Jenkins. Thats what this preference controls. I hope this helps!
I can't seem to enable indexing for my team's public repos, only my own. Other sites with GitHub login (e.g. Travis) allow you to login as your team rather than your individual user. Can this be enabled?
Thanks for checking it out! We'll investigate this ASAP. Can you shoot me an email at hi@sourcegraph.com and we'll follow up directly? (Just don't want to turn the discussion forum into a support thread.)
There has been at least one high-profile sex trafficking bust in the Seattle area recently [1]. That seems to correlate with an uptick in opinion articles decrying prostitution and all its problems.
I think most people can agree that sex trafficking is terrible, and we should pursue approaches to minimize it. Studies have shown that existing attempts at legalizing prostitution do not at all curb trafficking: in fact the increase in demand cancels out the increase in supply, keeping the market open for traffickers and abusers [2]. Given what we know so far, it's probably worth keeping prostitution illegal if we can't figure out a better way to keep sex trafficking down.
That said, there is a fascinating paper that analyzes the economics of the regulatory approaches that have been tried in various countries, and makes a recommendation for a legalization framework that might benefit all parties [3]. The authors note that while criminalizing supply (prostitutes) has no downward effect on trafficking, criminalizing demand does, and in fact trends toward 0 when the penalty is severe enough. They recommend a hybrid approach that regulates and licenses voluntary prostitution, while heavily criminalizing consumption of unlicensed prostitution.
If nothing else, this is a fascinating topic with plenty of room for further research. Conflating prostitution (transactional sex) with human trafficking doesn't serve to further that discussion, and they should be reasoned about separately.
> existing attempts at legalizing prostitution do not at all curb trafficking
That's because most of the attempts have been for a different reason, to protect the sex workers, not to combat trafficking. This is the right approach, we need to start protecting the sex workers, give them protections, rights, health services and so on.
Prostitution and sex trafficking are two different concepts, trying to combat them together will never work.
Potential energy is energy, so it's not quite correct that New Shepard had 0 joules at 100km. At 100km and 0 velocity it'll have about 1 gigajoule of energy per metric ton of mass.
I think the point was to illustrate the difference in energy requirements for the rocket to impart to the payload.
That said, re-reading Elon's article, he did explicitly say _kinetic_ energy in the 120GJ figure, in which case 0 is the right number for New Shepard at 100km.
This is beautiful. It's the first time I've been able to understand special relativity in terms of geometry.
Your visualization makes it clear how everything from time dilation to length contraction can be derived from simply knowing the Pythagorean theorem and the constancy of c.
Yes, ad blockers work. But they are susceptible to the tragedy of the commons: it's always advantageous to install an ad blocker. Then, as they proliferate, companies must insert more and more intrusive ads. This encourages more people to get ad blockers.
Allowing a tiered economy for content will enable those who wish to pay to do so, and those who don't to see ads. The ads can become less intrusive because the companies are no longer playing a cat-and-mouse game with their inventory. That should decrease the incentive to use an ad blocker, allowing that revenue stream to stabilize.