Photoshop was always expensive. Like $600 and up. They had some good deals for students but now moved to a subscription model. There's also some less legal ways to go about it though.

Would Brexit affect the job if you took it?

Also, would it cut into your streams, and how much do you enjoy doing those (on top of everything else you consider important in your free time)?

And the stream's going great. I broke 2000 followers recently and have some very exciting stuff happening soon.

Personally I'd take the money and save for something important, plus filling out your resume is always good. You have to make sure you're not spreading yourself too thin though.

Yeah, gotta be careful with that. My normal work and PhD stuff already takes a lot out of me. I'm also getting to the point where I'm getting paid for some of my streaming so who knows what'll happen there.

Long story short, I apparently impressed people at a conference and have since been approached by a British consultacy firm with a job offer. They want me work for them as an independent legal expert for research projects and R&D on artificial intelligence. I would't have to move or quit my current job as I'd only be working for them a limited amount of hours a month on the weekends / in the evenings where necessary. On the one hand, I'm really not looking for more work and less free time. On the other, these people have made me a very enticing offer and would compensate me more than generously for my work. As in a weekend of my time would net me more than what most people make in a month. Thing is that my financial situation is good as it is so I don't really need the extra income. It would be nice and a good mark on my resume for the future, but it's definitely not necessary.

What would you do?

I'll get back to you all but wanted to share this first. It's an award-winning paper that analyzed the relationship between Wikipedia and platforms that aggregate its content by sharing links with extensive snippets of text. The paper found that while Wiki adds a lot of value to the other sites, this relationship is unidirectional as few readers follow through to Wiki and give it traffic or revenue. Wikipedia is exempt from the Directive of course, but it stands to reason this holds true for many newspapers, authors and content creaties too. I'm not convinced they chose the right way to go about this but there's definitely evidence that it's a real issue they're trying to address.

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3174140

you did this

My institution is on a list of prominent signatories and experts that opposed the proposal. I did my best.

The new regulations seem pretty awful for fair-use content creation and the sharing of information, regardless of how you want to spin it.

I don't particularly support the Directive myself but be aware that there's two sides to this story. You're concerned with content creation, which is a legitimate concern, but you should realize that plenty of organizations representing artists, authors, musicians, photographers, videographers and so on have voiced their support for the Directive, arguing it will help content creators receive more and fairer renumeration and address people misusing and plagiarizing their work. I know several small time visual artists who are quite happy with the outcome for just that reason.

We'll have to wait and see what the outcome will be but I don't see it being anywhere near as bad as some would have you believe. The latest version of the law has been thoroughly amended and contains additional safeguards for individual users / SME's as well as serious redress mechanisms, requirements to respect copyright exceptions like fair use and requests not to blanket block or ban content.

How will they tax links or filter uploads?

Like YT's content ID?

Who are you referring to with "they"?

I disagree with almost all of that. What you said is not how they're fully defined and I believe the things I mentioned are at this point pretty much inherent to populism. If every single populist movement in modern and recent history checks all the boxes, it's more than just a coincidental "shady politician" misusing the label. It's part of the core values and methods the movement or ideology now relies on. What you're doing is no different from the people glancing over horrible governments and policies as "not real communism / socialism". I mean, who could possibly disagree with real communism? Equality for all, no social classes, no money, a perfect utopia where you just do your job and everyone has everything. But when time and time again these policies fail because of abuses and economic issues, you at one point have to realize they're closely and likely inseparably linked. Populism is no different.

On paper, what does Nazism stand for? National socialism. Sovereignty for the country. Equal rights for its people. All positions of public office must be held by citizens, not corrupt elites. Accessible and freely available healthcare, job protection, social services, higher education. Those are some of the fundamental tenets of national socialism, a term which sounds neutral and perfectly acceptable at first glance. It's a strong social policy that cares for and supports all its citizens ("socialism"), and protects the integrity and sovereignty of the country ("national"). You'd be crazy not to support that, right? It's only when you look a little further and gaze past what's just in the name that the other stuff comes out. With Nazism, the other stuff was still pretty much out in the open. With modern populism and nationalism? Less so, but it's still very much there.

A simplified name given to an ideology or movement on paper rarely tells the full story. The notions of populism and nationalism are still debated and there's no unanimously accepted definition for either. But saying that it's just about caring for the ordinary people simply isn't correct. That's such a broad generalization that just any political group that doesn’t just care about the 1% should be labeled populist. From my experience, populism is guilty without fail of the things I mentioned to the point that I think they're inherent to the ideology and movement. Populism is a crooked package deal. It is inherently negative. It's always about anti-intellectualism and capitalizing on the fears and misgivings of the uninformed to rile them up with misinformation against easy scapegoats. I'm all ears if you have evidence to the contrary, but I have never seen anything to support populism isn't what I'm saying it is.

If being proud of your heritage is what you're talking about, then patriotism is a more appropriate term. It's difficult to define nationalism but excessive polarization between the national identity and everything else is a key part of it. "An extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries", suggests Google's definition. "Exalting one nation above all others", is one of the meanings Webster suggests. The ideology that "the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests", according to Britannica. "Excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state", per dictionary.com. There's "weaker" definitions of it too, but claiming that it's just about being proud of your country and ignoring all the other connotations is just wrong to do. Nationalism is at its core about devoting yourself to the national identity of your people to the point that it overrides the interests of individuals and groups, and that it rejects multi-culturalism, globalism and supranational initiatives because it considers them as threats to the superior own identity and heritage.

Perhaps you’re not being disingenuous, but then I think you might just not be aware of the full extent of what we're talking about. Populism simply isn't just about "representing the ordinary citizens", and neither is nationalism limited to "being proud of your country". Both concepts go far beyond that and are tied to longstanding associations, methods and characteristics that you simply cannot ignore. Even if you argue that they aren't inherent to it in the sense that you could theoretically have "pure" populism that doesn't have the same flaws, the fact that this just doesn't (and simply can’t) happen in reality cannot be ignored.

From what I remember, you're not too big on SJW and PC stuff. What's social justice? The concept of "fair and just relations between the individual and society", as defined by Wiki. "A state of egalitarianism", per Webster. "All individuals and groups entitled to fair and impartial treatment", per LegalDictionary. It's a term that's been used for decades (even Churchill advocated for it). Political correctness? Avoiding behavior, language or practices that can be offensive, exclusionary or discriminatory to certain groups. It’s treating the people you interact with respect and mindfulness of how your choice of words or actions can negatively affect them. Two very straightforward and simple concepts that I think sound pretty good on paper, yet I imagine you're not quick to identify as a social justice activist or PC supporter, right? Point is that even if populism was ever good/neutral, the meaning of these terms does change over time - as it well should. And populism, as the movement and ideology has been in recent and modern history, is in my opinion a cancer that inherently contains all of the issues I described. If you care about truth, facts and reasonable policy, I strongly believe that you owe it to yourself to oppose populism for what it is.

Quote from: Flee on September 11, 2018, 06:08:08 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on September 10, 2018, 12:52:41 PM

Not educated enough to play the beta.

>there's actually people not playing the game because there's female and black soldiers in it

Fucking hell.

Nah, I'm just not buying any new EA games (unless its cheap like Titanfall 2 [Still wish Respawn was under Bethesda])
But some ppl were genuinely upset that there is a crippled woman being the front and center of WW2 but BF was never historically accurate, was it? I didn't understand those people. Other camp of ppl got upset because instead of addressing the backlash, EA simply told people to not buy the game if they don't like it.

I didn't mean to imply that you were one of them. Just baffled by the people who make a fuss about this. I've put a few hours into the beta so far and haven't once stopped to notice or think about whether someone's character was a woman or black. There's historically inaccurate stuff happening every minute. I don't agree with how Dice responded but many of the responses are beyond petty.

>haha soyboy SJW snowflakes can't deal with anything and get triggered over memes
>wtf soldier is girl? #BOYCOTTEA #NOTMYBATTLEFIELD fucking feminazi agenda ruining everything

Quote from: Desty on September 10, 2018, 01:21:09 PM

Quote from: Flee on September 10, 2018, 01:19:11 PM

Glad to see SD didn't gain as much as some of the polls suggested.

What's wrong with SD?

How about:

-Wanting to "replace" the media.
-Wanting to decrease the right to abortion.
-Wanting to get rid of paternal leave.

-Being populist and nationalist.
-Having its roots and foundations in genuine neo-nazi and fascist groups.
-Long history of anti-gay, anti-semitic, xenophobic and racist incidents
-...

Glad to see SD didn't gain as much as some of the polls suggested.

so why didn't they call it Battlefield 2

It already exists. The first Battlefield from 2002 was never called Battlefield 1, it was just Battlefield 1942. For example, they could name the next SF title "Street Fighter I" to signal a throwback or reboot because the original game was just "Street Fighter", but they couldn't name the one after that Street Fighter II since a game by that that exact name already exists. It makes more sense with BF1 one though since it went back to the earliest time period covered by the series and the name is a reference to WW1. All other games in the series were set in WW2, Vietnam, modern day, and near / far future.

Looks like it's over

So we're a few weeks later now and not only has no company reversed its decision, but now Twitter has also banned him permanently and Apple removed his app from the Apple Store.

Quote from: Flee on September 06, 2018, 12:58:05 PM

Quote from: XSEAN on September 05, 2018, 07:26:39 PM

A: Let me get back to about this.

Sure thing.

I got my opinions in my head but I can't make a sound counter  argument

That's too bad. I was hoping to hear a solid counter-point or opinion.