The problem is that the infringement has already happened and that the fee that is being asked is for not bringing this to small claims court (which would be fee plus court fees).
From TFA: What he did is that he removed the ability for event organizers to provide images to him. The risks involved was simply too big, since many event organizers failed to clear permissions before submitting images to him.
I wonder if we'll see a startup selling an api for "finding the nearest open equivalent of a closed licensed photo" for these use cases. with 400$ per image liability, there seems to be some margin for indexing open collections and running search queries on top.
The outage was most likely due to a issue where you could inherit other users sessions and see their chats and whatnot. While that is unconfirmed, we know the outage was different from regular at-capacity outages because they intentionally killed their API (status code 404 on all api endpoints) and you couldn’t even bypass the capacity message by being a Plus subscriber.
I’ve got quarterly reports going back years with a folder for each quarter. The file contents are so similar that searching for a specific quarter would just bring them all up. Much quicker to drill down by folder.
Most of our clients were dropshippers, so I don't have any basis to compare. It could be confirmation bias or just misinformation, but I can't not let my experience sway me into at least avoiding them entirely in the future.
Jack Dorsey's been pretty active on the podcast scene recently, and I feel it's harder to fake your personality in multiple long form conversations. I never got a hint of arrogance from him.
On a side note, why do people love to paint being the CEO of two companies in such a bad light? How is it different to a CEO of a conglomerate having responsibility for multiple divisions?
Generally shareholders would prefer a ceo whose incentives are aligned with those of the company. On the one hand maybe it’s good that Dorsey could fuck off from twitter if things went bad and not suffer too much from it: it allows him to take risks and ceos not wanting to take reasonable risks as much as shareholders would like (because they have a undiversified interest in their company doing well but more importantly not doing badly whereas shareholders are typically more diversified and so can accept a bigger loss) is a known issue with many public companies. On the other hand, if he can fuck off and do ok if things go bad, maybe he is less motivated to stop them going bad.
A second issue is that people may feel that he will not be able to do the job properly if he is splitting his time between companies, and twitter have to care about the opinions of their shareholders and their users and their advertisers and their employees. Any of those groups may feel this. A main part of the job of the CEO will be deciding what the companies values are and making sure they are reflected by the firm’s actions. For Twitter at the moment this seems like a harder job than for many companies so possibly it would be even harder than usual to be a part-time CEO.
When you say "never a hint of arrogance" you mean aside from him deciding to run a public company/major social media platform in his spare time? That it'd be fine to give something with 300 million users a half-hearted effort?
Unfortunately my Twitter NDA prevents me from giving details. But happily, I didn't sign the non-disparagement clause, so I don't think I can get in trouble for saying that I am very happy I no longer work at Twitter, and that I'd definitely not return while he was CEO.
I will grant, though, that he's excellent at performing reasonableness. He is particularly good at the humble apology for whatever Twitter's latest failure is, as well as the promise to do better next time. I could even believe he means it. In the moment, anyhow.
> That it'd be fine to give something with 300 million users a half-hearted effort?
Is Twitter not free? What does Jack owe anyone? He didn't force you to sign up for anything. He didn't force you to work for him either. I am sympathetic if you were somehow swindled through the hiring process as too many people are, but otherwise, it seems more arrogant to demand that this one man spend his time however you see fit vs. doing whatever he wants. Clearly the way he spends his time is working for him or else he wouldn't be in his position.
Of course it's working for him. That he values that over the impact on others is a sign of arrogance.
Nobody's demanding that he spend his time in a particular way. He is welcome to head off for a year-long silent meditation in Burma for all I care. But plenty of people are saying that Twitter deserves a CEO who's focused on the job. Twitter, as a key social-media platform and a network-effects business, is not something where people can choose among a variety of approximately equivalent providers. He's half-assing it, and the world deserves better.
>Jack Dorsey's been pretty active on the podcast scene recently, and I feel it's harder to fake your personality in multiple long form conversations. I never got a hint of arrogance from him
I do this all day, every day at work. Pretty sure most of us do to some degree. It's really not hard to put on a near perfect professional mask for extended periods of time, though it can be exhausting for some people.
Trademarks normally work under a "use it or lose it" policy, so it's slightly different to avoiding typosquatting like you could with a domain, in that you actually have to demonstrate usage of it to maintain the registration.
Slightly off topic, but it took me a few attempts to really get into The Alchemist - maybe because I didn't appreciate where it was going or it just wasn't good reading material for where I was in life.
Eventually I stuck with it and found it a really eye-opening read, I feel like it's a life guidance book in disguise and I'm usually averse to them but the concept of a Personal Legend really did resonate with me.
Not really surprised by all the negative reviews on Goodreads, I stubbornly felt a similar way for a while.
Brazilian speaking. Coelho is considered one of our finest songwriters of all time. He sells a lot, but is considered low literature over here. The Alchemist is basically a bunch of mystical and self help cliches.
Paulo Coelho likes to propagate the notion that he posses actual magical powers. When a news crew went to his house, he refused to unsheathe a sword because it might unleash catastrophic events.
That said, I read The Alchemist when I was a teenager and found it pretty fun. As a adult, I would never would never take him seriously.
I was always curious why Paulo Coelho's Alchemist became a worldwide bestseller and last week I finally read it.
It's a self-help book disguised as a mystical and easy to read fairytale that most people can somehow relate. It's not the best self-help book I ever read, it's not the best fairytale I ever read, but the result of this mix is brilliant. Most people love it, some people don't understand it and some people don't want to understand it. It definitely worths a read.
