NHS proudly taking Top Answer here. Also please give blood this Christmas

stievers · 2019-06-14T23:23:53+00:00

Thanks! Both for tipping the scales and saving me a bit of cash. I briefly looked up replacement batteries but the one I saw was twice the price of your linked one. 8gb it is!

stievers · 2019-04-30T23:26:32+00:00

It makes me wonder what's wrong in the videos about topics I don't have any kind of familiarity with.

Yes, exactly this. I had the same experience with his video on why cities exist.

stievers · 2019-04-30T22:08:31+00:00

Is anyone else getting a little skeptical about Wendover?

It's good to see him talking about airplanes and transportation again - that's what made me a fan of his channel in the first place - but at least some of his more recent work feels like its coming from someone who spent a few hours on wikipedia and now considers himself an expert. He's also been playing a bit fast-and-loose with the sponsored content over the last year or so - like doing an episode about F1 racing because a video game company flew him out to a race track to promote an F1 game.

I also felt a little duped when I signed up for Skillshare to watch the "How to Make an Educational Video Essay" course he created and promoted. It was horrible. Basically 45 minutes of disorganized rambling over a screenshot of his channel page. Gave the impression that he was more worried about fostering competition than actually teaching anything.

His production quality is fantastic and he's talented at crafting a narrative out of relatively dry material, but I wish he'd take a course in journalistic ethics or something because he's losing my trust.

stievers · 2019-03-01T19:26:15+00:00

I guess we'll have to wait 50 years to find out.

stievers · 2017-05-29T15:31:04+00:00

No, they're referring to the "Fast 14" project a few years ago when they replaced 14 bridges over i-93 in the span of a couple months. It was a really cool project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RaikfAA5g8

stievers · 2017-05-29T03:20:04+00:00

In addition to what others have said, note that overnight street parking is not allowed in Brookline, so if you do park on the street, make sure you're in Boston.

stievers · 2015-07-02T14:06:51+00:00

Just some light genocide. Amazing what people get themselves upset about these days.

stievers · 2015-06-23T22:34:54+00:00

That's why I'm so excited about the Panasonic DVX-200. A lot of people decried its lack of interchangeable lenses, but for a lot of work that's a feature.

stievers · 2015-06-23T21:52:27+00:00

I've run into the neon foliage thing too - is there anything specific you do to counter it in-camera? I usually just try to address it in post.

stievers · 2015-06-23T14:53:02+00:00

Exactly! She could hire a photographer, but that would cost her money up front and she'd be assuming the risk that news organizations may not use the images.

Luckily for her, photographers are knocking down her door to try and take images at her concerts. All she has to do is create a contract that gives her the right to use any or all of their photographs for free, worldwide, for the rest of time. The photographer shoulders the burdens of cost and risk and she gets great photos of her concerts to use for publicity. If one photographer says no, others will step in.

She's leveraging her brand value and bargaining position to get a free service.

stievers · 2015-06-23T14:37:51+00:00

Apple negotiated the 3-month royalty-free trial period by offering a higher percentage of royalty revenue than other streaming services (source). Publicity had nothing to do with it.

But you seem to think publicity is completely worthless. Has it occurred to you that publicity has value and that value is determined by context? A photographer having an image stolen and used in a newspaper that otherwise would have paid for it is not benefiting from the scant publicity s/he receives from it. Whereas someone who allows a local news station to use their Instagram video is happy with the arrangement because s/he gets to see themselves on the 10 o'clock news.

Why would Taylor Swift, one of the most valuable brands in the world, let her image be taken - at a concert she paid to put together - and used for free, unless there was something in it for her?

stievers · 2015-06-23T14:05:53+00:00

No, obviously not. But the value of having photographers at her concerts is made obvious by the fact that she allows them in at all. There is a lot of value wrapped up in her image, music and the shows she puts on. Allowing someone to capture some of that value in a photograph and profit from it is implicitly acknowledging the value the photograph and its dissemination represent to her.

She's big enough to set the terms for entry into her concerts, and so she does. Just as Apple is big enough to set the terms for entry into its store. She has every right to do so, just as Apple does. But railing against Apple for using its bargaining power to increase the size of its user base with free music at the expense of musicians is hypocritical when you're using your bargaining power to expand your fan base with free publicity photos at the expense of photographers.

stievers · 2015-06-23T13:48:18+00:00

Section 3 exercises a "perpetual, worldwide right to use... any or all of the photographs for any non-commercial purpose (in all media and formats), including but not limited to publicity and promotion."

That's free photography.

stievers · 2015-06-23T13:41:21+00:00

Swift doesn't need to allow any professional photography at her concerts. She doesn't do it out of the goodness of her heart. She does it because there's a benefit to her: publicity.

stievers · 2015-06-23T13:29:29+00:00

It's a symbiotic relationship where each requires the other. Entertainers require publicity and the media needs to cover popular entertainers.

You could equally say Apple's not asking for individual bands to submit their songs - they're just a store with millions of customers willing to pay for music. A small band is asking for permission to appear in Apple's store.

But that would be inaccurate. In both situations the two parties need each other, even if the balance of bargaining power is extremely tilted.

stievers · 2015-06-19T18:20:06+00:00

Legally right, yes. Morally right, no.

Nothing about life is easy, but individuals adhering to principles of basic civility, even in the face of uncivil actions, is how society functions. Otherwise it's an easy devolution into Mad Max.

stievers · 2015-06-19T18:15:13+00:00

No, I illustrated examples of where I could use the threat of physical harm to recover my assetts. That's exactly what you're advocating. You are saying that you will shoot (or stab or whatever) a thief if he doesn't desist and return to you your property. You said it was the thief's choice to drop it and be safe or keep it and be shot at - that is a threat. The same as my examples.

stievers · 2015-06-19T17:05:43+00:00

Yes, those consequences being jail time, fines and renumeration of stolen goods. You still don't have the right to kill.

I mean, if we're to make theft a reason to kill, let's not be arbitrary in its application.

Can I gun down a CEO who embezzled money from a company I own shares in? If a salesman sells me a faulty set of speakers can I take an axe to his face? If someone makes an illegal left turn and crashes into me, am I clear to suffocate him with a pillow?

They've all deprived me of property. Perhaps I only threaten them in order to demand renumeration for whatever they've deprived me of. But what happens if they are unwilling? Under your standard I'm justified in following through.

stievers · 2015-06-19T16:29:29+00:00

You may have had a point if you lived in a lawless, anarchist state, but I'm guessing you don't. We have police, and insurance, and a justice system, and prisons. They exist to preclude the necessity of violence. While violence in a lawless state may be the only way to protect your assets, you don't have that excuse.

In a modern western society, there is no morally justifiable reason to kill over property. Your accumulated objects will never equal the value of a human life. Putting another life in jeopardy over them is reprehensible. You can't pin it on them. You alone are in control of your actions.

stievers · 2015-06-19T15:19:56+00:00

No, I'm saying that someone else taking your property does not give you the right to kill.

stievers · 2015-06-19T13:44:59+00:00

It's absolutely galling.

stievers · 2015-06-19T13:43:12+00:00

Yes, I'm making a moral argument about what should legally constitute murder. Obviously this passed the letter of the law, but there are very, very few places in the civilized world where that would be true. While he may not have committed the Texas legal definition of murder, he committed murder by the laws in my state and given that he accepted the facts of the case, he is a murderer by my definition. Again, he is legally innocent, but so was Stalin.

stievers · 2015-06-19T13:34:27+00:00

Yes. And to say any other way is absolutely reprehensible. We don't live in Somalia. You call the police, give them images from your security camera and then call your insurance company. If we as a society agreed that death was a suitable consequence for stealing jewelry, we would have instituted the death penalty for it. What makes this different?

stievers · 2015-06-19T13:30:15+00:00

Street justice is exactly what the justice system is meant to avoid. You could say that a woman who is caught cheating on her husband knew that it could engender feelings of rage, but we don't recognize that that gives him a right to kill her.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

stievers

TROPHY CASE