Venia Silente

They could steal your personal data without you knowing.

Hah! Like the “legal” services are much better than that!

I like how you think!

Please, that’s rookie terms.

Set it to 98, you won’t have to worry about it again for like, a century.

Yeah like we could have a shared legal entity, say a corporation,

You mispelt coöperative.

Only 250 Palestinians in 24 hours? ngl, that sounds like rookie numbers for Israel.

Come on guys, the Holocaust was proof that one can do better! Don’t aim to just be equal to the nazis, Israel; aim to surpass them!

Very late to the convo but: sounds like a name that one can build stuff from. قَرِفَ (“qarifa” in Persian IIRC) seems to translate to “to peel” which I guess it means to do that to a fruit, for example. There’s also تعرفه (“ta’rif” in Arabic IIRC) from which we get “tariff”, “tax”, “rate”, etc. Curious that this appears in a fruit puzzle since you peel fruits and weigh them to eg.: pay a rate per kilo.

Anyway, as an example if I was to build something from all this context it would be a (pseudo?)-legendary of either feline or avian shape representing the concept of trade or exchange. Something using the constellation of Libra 's scales for the representation of trade, and a repetition pattern of body adornments, such as plumage or crests, as athe representation of the concept of double-entry accounting . In the case of a feline-ish I would even shift it closer to the interpretation of the Sphynx (tho that’s more of an Egyptian influence) or a centaur-ish interpretation closer to the Manticore (and that’s going Greek / Old Persian).

If going feline, with the Pokémon having chain-like hairs or protrusions attached I could go the extra mile giving it two pairs of those (to combine with double accounting too) and bam! you’d basically have the concept of an audit-oriented Displacer beast.

If going bird, I think I’d throw it in the general direction of sea gulls to represent trade winds, but would probably have to mix pelican in there somewhere for birds who are known to carry and move stuff around; the end result would probably end up looking something in-between Wingull and Lugia.

Anyway that’s just me, a Pokémon worldbuilder with lots of free time.

tomæto, tœmato

What’s your beef with the tagginator bot? It’s certainly better than the reddit repost bots, right?

And such “return” comes after the work, not before. So there’s no reason to condition the wages to do the work, on the potential that the work might be sold or not and to what amount of people. Now that would be air-quotes “stealing”!

They are Pokémon fandom specific ones so they’re really kind of niche-within-a-niche: @fakemon@fedia.io and @PokemonFanfiction@fedia.io . I started both when the Reddit migrations started so that people could see a landing spot and start activity, but as far as I’ve noticed none has grabbed.

Been also thinking of starting up their lemmy equivalents for discoverability. But ATM I myself have nothing to add to them other than (for the most part) Reddit reposts, so I’d rather see activity from other people first. Like I said: I’m interested in the community, not in the moderation.

He is the nerdiest nerd ever. That’s why he’s long seen what is going on and has been trying to save us.

I think my point is getting lost in the one pro-corporate part of it…the corporation is responsible for nearly all of the risk, and that investment is what ultimately creates the content. They absolutely do deserve some stake in its IP, just not necessarily nearly as much as they currently have.

No and no.

the corporation is responsible for the risk

The creators take more of a risk by going with a corporation. Corporations have hella money, they can afford to spend some on [checks notes] living wages.

the corporations ultimately create the content

Once again no. The creators do.

I can get that they’d not necessarily be paid upfront, but there is no possible legal contract in which they are to be paid only in the future, in causality, according to the performance of a ~~third~ ~ fourth party who is not in the contract. What, are the actors paying their weekly groceries with IOUs?

From the investors who are paying the cheques of course. They are corporations, they can afford to spend some coins on [checks notes] living wages.

There’s a difference between the performer’s time to create not being infinitely reproducible, and an user’s time to use the product being or not infinitely reproducible. Whether I’m pirating or buying a TV show, the actors were already compensated for their time and use for the show; my payment for buying actually goes to the corporate fat: licensors, distributors, etc.

Whereas when pay a ticket into a live concert, I’m actually paying for something to be made.

Unfortunately, corporations are really the closest proxy we really have.

[citation needed]

The closest thing we have to “representation proxy to a community of people who helped author a thing” is an author’s guild, for example. And things like the Writers’ Guild already exist, I’m sure there’s a Drawers’ Guild too. Not as close, but more solidly defined, would be a union, oh guess what? We have those, too.

In comparison, a “corporation” has a whole lotta fat.

Corporations don’t need you to shill for them.

Nani?

If what you care about is the abstract idea that the idea of something can be owned, whether the book is in the library or in my pocket doesn’t change the fact that the idea of the book is by the author. I can move the book wherever - across even national borders if I want to - and that “intrinsic value” doesn’t change.

True. Browsers are so damn complex these days!

Completely off-topic but I recall a lawyers TV show back in the day where the response to this joke was something like:

“About at the same time you stopped beating yours”

Which would have been interesting to see how that would have worked at the court. Can’t remember the show alas, but it was probably The Practice (a late 90s show I think, predecessor to Boston Legal).

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to others, which I should have done beforehand. Admittedly when I wrote that post I was thinking of the term “tenacious” which means something completely different, and that distracted me from noticing I was using a perhaps obscure word.