Right? There’s no part of that xeet that makes any real sense coming from a “data engineer.”

Terrifying, really.

You seem very convinced, considering the downvotes of discussion.

So… out of date stats about advertising?

You could query 60,000 rows on a low tier smart phone. Makes no sense at all.

Even if it was local, a raspberry pi can handle a query that size.

Edit - honestly, it reeks of a knowledge level that calls the entire PC a “hard drive”.

Seems like a good excuse to someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and needs an excuse because why they haven’t completed it yet?

The whole post is complete bs in multiple ways. So weird.

If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.

Just because it’s been corrupted doesn’t mean the intent and purpose isn’t still there.

It’s absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you’re stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.

Seems like a strange application of stats when, as you say, the regulated safety features - the important ones - need not come into a decision-making process and advertising them would be a waste of time.

Bahaha, what kind of a bizarre statement is that?

Was he trying to imply the government only uses spreadsheets and nosql DBs?

Or did he think it was necessary to point out that your average government employee isn’t writing their own SQL to grab data they need?

do syntax

Ironic phrase.

Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.

I’m not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.

Copyright IS about protecting creators; we’re just still letting corporations run the show.

It’s a great tool. Summaries are fantastic and “what would be a good way to code this snippet” often teaches me something new.

I also find it’s helpful to ask about best practices when I’m not sure.

Anything beyond short scripts, though, and you’re going to spend more time than you saved fixing it.

Absolutely. Finally a reply with some sense. This would work well, or at least better.

The “copyright doesn’t protect anyone so let’s remove it” people are just playing into the hands of big corporations.

Those are problems with the shitty enforcement, and allowing corporations to run rampant.

It needs to be refined, not removed.

Without copyright, you could write a novel, and any corp or person could just start publishing it without paying you a dime.

Just because something isn’t protecting well enough doesn’t mean you get rid of it.

So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?

And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.

It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.

Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won’t NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They’ll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.

I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there’s hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.

Had an old one that kinda works but is a pain. More recently, we splurged on a more modern pet version with Wi-Fi and all the bells.

It was fantastic. And 3 weeks in, couldn’t stay connected to the network even right beside the router and was doing constant very short runs before returning to the dock saying it was full.

Returned it.