Initially a post order-only for consumer electronics, but added bricks & mortar stores because many customers (of all ages, btw) prefer IRL service, viewing and touching actual hardware.
> prefer IRL service, viewing and touching actual hardware.
That did Fry's in, didn't it? People coming in viewing, touching hardware in store and then buy it on-line (elsewhere) so that they could save 2.5%. Or worse, buying it in store and returning it two weeks later when they found a better deal or didn't need it anymore.
> Or worse, buying it in store and returning it two weeks later when they found a better deal or didn't need it anymore.
Here a lot of places has a sort of price guarantee that I guess is supposed to work against this. Basically, if I know Media Markt sells something I want, but the very same thing is available for cheaper in other (big) store, I'll show them their competitors pricing and they'll lower their price to match it.
Assuming by the fact that the physical stores still exists, don't seem to be going anywhere soon, and these companies tend to get rid of stuff that doesn't make them profit anymore, I think it's safe to assume they at least are net positive on having the physical stores.
That's the same issue I hear Apple users complain about: how it's such a drag to copy paste screenshots from keynote into powerpoint, every time they can't present from their own laptop.
I don't think the reason for copyright law is compensation, per se. It's ownership: being in a position where the creator is able to decide what to do with it. Compensation being one option, but also restricting use our controlling access.
Would it make more sense if this Sovereign Tech Agency behaved less like a Sovereign Tech Fund and simply hired the developers? Or is civil servants developing OSS commodities too much of a heresy?
> is civil servants developing OSS commodities too much of a heresy
I see two problems here for Germany. First, the salaries of civil servants are regulated, and might be not what most developers, even German ones, expect. In addition civil servant status is bundled with privileges and duties that make it painful to lay it down. Most developers are used to job flexibility though, especially as, as I said, the salaries are not going to be great.
Second, there is a decision by the Constitutional Court that prohibits the state from competing with the market. Temporary grants to independent actors are among other things a way to work around it.
The first part boils down to any civil servant: inflexibility and lower wages aren't for everyone, but it should not be impossible to attract talent intrinsically motivated to contribute to public cause. Especially when it's OSS.
The second part is a bit closer to the heresy angle: new public management forbids competing with "free market". Of course, many EU governments have always found and used all kinds of loopholes to support "independent enterprises" like railways, airlines, power companies and banks once they become too big to fail.
Maybe commodity open source software has reached that level too...
I agree on the second point. I assume we all know that this weird EU free market religion is harmful. The EU would be 1000% better for us, without the economy stuff it was originally build upon.
Free markets are dysfunctional and never fair. How we now? Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta proof it every day. The US and China don’t even care about fairness. Why they should?
Someone mentioned above the limited money STF has. I agree. I did not considered it noteworthy.
There is also the option of structural funding (Strukturförderung in german) where important organizations receive multi-year contracts instead of short term project funding.
Okay, but isn't it likely that the outcome of those scientific investigations will be that the Himalayan foothills should not be inhabited at all, except maybe a couple of places? What I mean is: Sure, politicians and contractors could do better, but I believe the primary reason for villages and bridges in those valleys is that people want them there. Standard of living is exceptionally low and this is just one of many hazards.
> Okay, but isn't it likely that the outcome of those scientific investigations will be that the Himalayan foothills should not be inhabited at all, except maybe a couple of places
Yes and that is broadly the safe option. One can build on geological stable high grounds. They are rather and more difficult to build on. We know what happens when we don't.
> Sure, politicians and contractors could do better
It's not mistake of the "oops a typo" variety.
They are knowingly making a freakton of money by endangering the people who ought to know better. I agree sometimes the poor might not have viable alternatives that they can fund with their own bank balance but it seems this is where the governments should step in to fund alternatives. But why do that when there is easy money to be made.
While I usually prefer to attribute incompetence rather than malice, it's hard to deny corruption is a likely factor here too. But the "freakton of money" aspect IMO needs nuance. I wager that the wealth of those cronies doesn't come close to my western living standards, so who am I to judge?
The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future is not priced in (make insurance mandatory?) and because of acts of corruption that actively promote/incentivize development in hazardous areas by rewriting zoning, repricing permits, rewriting saner policies.
Some people's job is building new houses to sell them. Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas. Usually there is no point working unless it's for money so take your guess.
BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.
> Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas
No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position.
My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks.
In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position.
Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.
And most of this "well obviously nobody should build anywhere where there will be serious destruction every couple generations" type sentiment ultimately just to funnels wealth and power to whoever took that good land previously.
If there is serious distruction every couple of generations it happens either to you or to your children. So, do you really want to build our buy there? If it happened to your parents there is no you.
But that would simply result in Most Americans don't want AI Data Centers, which isn't the same as NYMBYism. I think many Americans see the benefits of having access to unicorn farts and may even support having more data centers. Just not in my backyard, thank you.
(Ftr. the article doesn't have an opinion on whether Americans like AI, just my take.)
The ambiguity of the word "Open" has a long history. Going back to at least late 1980s, when X Window "skin" OPEN LOOK (by AT&T - Sun consortium) had license issues and Open Source Foundation started work on OSF Motif.
That would be truly ironic: companies get big harvesting any data with questionable copyright implications, then hide behind DMCA if access to the harvest is used "inappropriately".
One might step back and ask: why would a well funded company with free mining access to all the information in the world need to be protected from the market, if the market suggest less money and resources are sufficient?
Initially a post order-only for consumer electronics, but added bricks & mortar stores because many customers (of all ages, btw) prefer IRL service, viewing and touching actual hardware.
reply