Real talk. You're not just making a good point -- you're questioning the dominant paradigm

Horrible

They don't want to be too hard on piracy, its their new/young user on ramp method

Also a lot of recent features are AI related and rely on talking to Adobe servers, which would require a valid subscription. They're probably betting the AI features are valuable enough that local only pirated copies aren't a threat long term.

Some of it is, but things like "your stage/dev and production environments should be completely isolated from eachother" are valid and most tech companies get lazy on this front

A similar BS is also every CEO claiming AI made their company 10x faster yet GDP trends not really budging

Why would you expect to see speed of software development reflected in the current GDP?

Because, allegedly, everyone is writing bespoke software that solves their every need?

If every software company was _actually_ 4-5x or more productive (like CEOs are saying) that should be easily detectable in economic data

No it isn't. It's a competition, making moves that benefit you and attempting to deprive your opponent of the same move is just called competing

Wait, are you saying that it's not hypocritical for my chess opponent to try to protect their king while trying to kill mine? :mind-blown:

Tech people are funny, with these takes that businesses do/should adhere to absolute platonic ideals and follow them blindly regardless of context.

No, it's ethical people pointing out that if you toss aside ethics for success at all costs, you aren't going to find any sympathy when people start doing the same thing back to you. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say.

There is a reason we don't do things. That reason is it makes the world a worse place for everyone. If you are so incredibly out of touch with any semblance of ethics at all; mayhaps you are just a little bit part of the problem.

The funny thing about ethics is there is no absolute, which makes some people uncomfortable. Is it ethical to slice someone with a knife? Does it depend if you're a surgeon or not?

Absolutism + reductionism leads to this kind of nonsense. It is possible that people can disagree about (re)use of culture, including music and print. Therefore it is possible for nuance and context to matter.

Life is a lot easier if you subscribe to a "anyone who disagrees with me on any topic must have no ethics whatsoever and is a BAD person." But it's really not an especially mature worldview.

Categorical imperative and Golden Rule, or as you may know it from game theory "tit-for-tat" says "hi". The beautiful thing about ethics is that we philosophers intentionally teach it descriptively, but encourage one to choose their own based on context invariance. What this does is create an effective litmus test for detecting shitty people/behavior. You grasping on for dear life to "there's no absolutes" is an act of self-soothing on your own part as you're trying to rationalize your own behavior to provide an ego crumple zone. I, on the other hand, don't intend to leave you that option. That you're having to do it is a Neon sign of your own unethicality in this matter. We get to have nice things when people moderate themselves (we tolerate eventual free access to everything as long as the people who don't want to pay for it don't go and try to replace us economically at scale). When people abuse that, (scrape the Internet, try to sell work product in a way that jeopardizes the environment we create in) the nice thing starts going away, and you've made the world worse.

Welcome to life bucko. Stop being a shitty person and get with the program so we have something to leave behind that has a chance of not making us villains in the eyes of those we eventually leave behind. The trick is doing things the harder way because it's the right way to do it. Not doing it the wrong way because you're pretty sure you can get away with it.

But you're already ethically compromised, so I don't really expect this to do any good except to maybe make the part of you you pointedly ignore start to stir assuming you haven't completely given yourself up to a life of ne'er-do-wellry. Enjoy the enantidromia. Failing that, karma's a bitch.

Whenever I see someone on HN preaching about how it's all dog-eat-dog and zero-sum, I imagine them being lonely.

No real friends, no trusted life partner, no kids, no unconditional love. Alone.

Just another soul traveling on an infinite road with lots of signs that point to "happiness," planted there by fellow travelers, never reaching their destination.

Would you feel the same way if a professional athlete was saying it? are you just anti-competition in general?

Yeah man I would love to play poker against these people

It's definitely still hypocrisy.

No it isn't, have you never played any game or sport? do you fundamentally not understand the concept of competition?

This simping is such a bad look. Why go to bat for a man who wouldn't piss on you to put out a fire? Act like a man jesus christ

Some people think that justice should be blind, and that’s long been an ideal in the US.

I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principle of equality while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.

Are you pro or anti touchdown? Do you support or oppose winning? Is supporting my allies winning and enemies losing wrong?

Why not, people are different and principles can account for that. It might mean that your alignment isn't fully lawful.

What happens is that it takes the form of attributing bad things to enemies and good things to allies, such that you are blind to where your allies are not your allies. If your allies are acting opposed to your interests but you like them because they signal to you as an in group, then you are being fooled by them. Thus, it is good to actually evaluate things on their merits once in a while.

The "blind" ones are people like you! doing everything in good faith against people who aren't and fundamentally oppose you and your existence. Foolish!

It is only foolish if you would be happier as a cynic.

Sitting down at a table to play poker and refusing to acknowledge the rest of the players are trying to take your money isn't "avoiding cynicism" it's just being a mark

But approaching every social interaction as a zero-sum game where you are competing with others is not only cynical but exhausting and makes one unbearable to be around. If you want to do that, then I guess you will be in good company hanging out with the bad-faith liars you feel are worth destroying your own values to combat.

have fun continuing to lose in a noble fashion

Support your allies, yes.

Think everything they do is right? Hell no.

And every once in a while you need to check if your list of allies should change.

doesn't that undermine the entire reason to have laws? if they are really just excuse to punish our enemies and reward our friends, why even bother with the pretense of a trial?

The reason we have laws is to protect the powerful from mobs right?

Laws protect interests of the ruling class. If interests are insufficient reason, then what is sufficient?

It leads to keeping the bad people on your "side" just because they share some of the values

> It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"

No, the hilarious part is that the "educated liberal bubble" will do exactly that thing, and then wonder why everyone else is seeing them as crazies; because they'd rather side with bad actors on their side purely because other side is attacking them, no matter the reason.

And of course, not only them. It's natural human herd behavior. And it leads to absolutely terrible end results

The crime is the crime. No matter the leaning of the criminal

Its "valid" to do anything in this context weirdo, it isnt like a veridical thing!

"It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand."

Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?

Wow you got my demographics and political opinions wrong entirely! We almost certainly vote for the same people. I'm just so sick of people in our tribe who REFUSE to ever name their enemies. We're doing everything in good faith against people who hate us and want us to die. It's silly, and standing on some principles while we continually lose over and over is sad to watch

This is so antisocial. Just go listen to it by yourself in your room if human presence is annoying

There is a difference between us all experiencing a shared artistic experience and us hearing about your kids while we are trying very hard to share an artistic experience.

I wouldn't complain much about people singing along to a ballad or such but yapping, you can go do that somewhere else.

I'm so split on this. Ultimately I think I land on: "if there's chairs, engage in the shared sensory experience. If it's GA standing room only, it's a party and do whatever."

This is the typical reply of the inconsiderate. “If my behavior is so problematic, then you should stay home.”

The problem isn’t with “human presence”. It’s with the select few who can’t or won’t control their own behavior out of respect for others.

As a musician I ask if the music is so fragile it can't stand up to some extraneous background noise, is it really worth listening to?

Also, if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening, isn't that the fault of the 'sensory experience?'

It really depends on the music and the background noise? Talking (more likely yelling) in the middle of a rock concert? Probably not an issue. I’m wearing earplugs anyway. Holding a conversation in the middle of a quiet passage during an orchestra performance? Everyone near you wants you to shut up.

It’s like people talking through a comedy show. Saying something quietly to the person next to you? Whatever. Talking loudly for 20 minutes? Get the fuck out. Go talk to your friends at a bar and let people who came to hear the act enjoy the act.

> if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening

But then leave. If you don’t like the show, it’s totally fair for you to just get up and go. Talking through a show you don’t care about and disturbing people who do want to be there? Why?

The stock market has said SaaS is dead

If the stock market told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

Regardless, the statement "the stock market has said SaaS is dead" is a fair and accurate response to your initial question "Who said SaaS is dead".