I agree, but I can strongly recommend Claude Code with the Intellij plugin. Actually works pretty great for kotlin!
And, JetBrains finally started working on an open language server. It's not perfect but it makes it bearable to at least edit Kotlin in Cursor/VS Code.
I have been following this account and enjoying all their posts of amazing product designs - and I didn't even realise until I read this comment that it's AI -generated!
There’s a convergence of consumer and business here. Even a home owned and leased out in a country of origin drives demand for services that aren’t offered by today’s financial institutions. Also, as you suggest, many immigrants export cars and other physical products home to subsidize their salary where they now reside.
I've replaced "majority" with "many" in the text above, since that's just as good for making the key point. If someone comes with a compelling citation we can change it back :)
(Your comment is great, I just needed a place to hang this moderation announcement!)
>So you think the chance of human beings to come up with 4 random words is pretty low?
I've always wondered how effective the random words thing is. sure, there are like 100k english words in current use according to google, but it seems like a list of the most common few hundred of those words would crack a lot of passwords.
If you assume the password to be only based on the 200 most common words you already have 30.5 bits of entropy to brute force or 1.6 billion guesses and you're assuming your attacker knows you're using this password strategy. The Wikipedia entry on Basic English [1] suggests there are about 850 core words for daily life and I could immediately think of simple words like well-known animals you would see in the zoo that are not included. So how many of these "4 words that you could draw as a picture"-passwords actually fall into even the most common 850 words?
30 bits of entropy isn't particularly secure against locally cracking a password hashed with sha256 or a similar non password hash. However at 1000 guesses per second it would already take 28 days to brute-force and 1000 guesses per second is pretty fast against any password stored with a properly configured password hash like bcrypt.
I personally auto-generate readable passwords for most websites at ~70 entropy pure brute-force and ~50 entropy if my algorithm and set of inputs would be exposed.
You also need to be aware that in this case, the attacker is/would not targeting any specific device. For brute forcing, all it takes is a dictionary of most common passwords and a list of devices that are exposed. Attackers won't spend too much time on any single device as there are so many options out there.
While I agree more money should be sent towards small artists and I really hate to see myself defending a giant tech company, the demands of "x per stream" always makes me a bit confused.
Since spotify already pay out the vast majority of their revenue, there is not really much more room for increase there, at best 5-10% which likely wouldn't settle the case.
Reasonable suggestions would be that either: 1. labels should get less, 2. top artists should get less or 3. consumers should pay more.
Maybe the artists think consumers should pay more. If Spotify wasn't a quasi-monopoly, it would seem silly for artists to demand consumers pay more only on the Spotify platform, but since Spotify is, the argument is at least prima facie reasonable?
Spotify doesn’t seem like a monopoly that has pricing power; they are in tight competition with multiple streaming services like Apple Music and amazon close behind and catching up. There are some sources that have Apple Music already with more paid subscribers than Spotify, and Spotify definitely can’t pay a penny per stream of their free ad users.
> Spotify doesn’t seem like a monopoly that has pricing power
I'd argue that all music-streaming services have very little pricing power!
Streaming services rely on being an easier/friction-free option as opposed to piracy (or alternatively, buying the copies directly from the musicians).
Your point is still valid though, the competition is still fierce; Amazon, Tidal, Apple.. etc.
For years there's been a conflict broadly defined as "streaming rates paid to artists are irrationally low" vs. "streaming services aren't making money as it is"; the problem is that those aren't mutually exclusive positions. They can both be true at the same time.
At least to me, this suggests that the real problem is that $8–10 a month for ad-free streams was too low a price point to set. If Spotify's pricing structure had been something more like Hulu's -- no free tier at all, $6/month with ads and $12/month without -- they'd have easily been able to meet that penny-per-stream pay rate. (Tidal beats that pay rate, but I suspect that's by virtue of charging $20/month for "hi-fi" streams.) But, at this point they've set consumer expectations: streaming music services cost $10 per month. Changing that would be pretty difficult.
> the real problem is that $8–10 a month for ad-free streams
Which sounds a bit weird to me. How many people used to spend more than $10 everymonth on LP or CD records. Probably many enthusiasts, but the average customer? Not a chance.
Yet artists say they get paid a lot less. The money must go somewhere.
> Yet artists say they get paid a lot less. The money must go somewhere.
I don't have any stats for this, but my first guess would be way more paid artists (before the internet, how many people could even hope to make money off music? Physical distribution vs digital distribution is a huge barrier).
IMO spending $10 a month on CDs is a different market, since you own an asset in perpetuity. Spotify would have to guarantee a perpetual license that expands your library access the more you pay in. Instead, Spotify rents access to a single large library (which is good enough for most but very different).
It's an interesting question. The cost structures are obviously very different, and while the assumption is that the internet always makes things cheaper and better, I haven't dug into that to see how it really plays out in this context.
And, JetBrains finally started working on an open language server. It's not perfect but it makes it bearable to at least edit Kotlin in Cursor/VS Code.
https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/27310-claude-code-beta- https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-lsp