Not quite pants, but something's alight.
I'm including this dressmaker's very literal breakdown of a mass-manufactured fast fashion replica of her work because who better to burn a poorly made copy than the person who made the original? My only regret is that I found this video about two years after its initial upload.
(in this case, and won't; in this case, and did until now). I expect it's in part because of profit-related issues mentioned in the video above (the article with the erased statement echoes my expectation). Congratulations on being part of the reason they no longer need you, 白左. (Also, let me correct a statement made in one of those articles - 'A nation's dignity is not to be violated' so long as the violated nation is not your own, 伪君子. Still there, 微软.)
By the way, asking fans to donate while being entirely willing to snatch the free-to-learn design of another (resolved, but does this issue ever fit the topic at hand) brings up a long-ago musing on dark hair, long legs, hollow souls - financial assistance provided less as a kindness than as a display. (Funny how that last bit of news is more balanced on the matter than I was and am.)
If envy is appropriate in any circumstance, it's for these creators and their skill in their work. Their willingness to share their knowledge places any onus regarding the matter on those who wish to use that knowledge to create for themselves - one's willingness to put the effort into the precision in the shaping, to take on the cost of the materials, and to spend the time and labor involved in making things by hand versus by machine, is what makes the outcome worthy of admiration. (Machine in my case, and even then, my seams are laughable.) Between these people and those who delegate the work to others, guess who I'll choose every time?
- Of the three tech heads I heard yesterday, I can at least respect the straightforwardness of The Goat, even if I disagree with the use of the term 'alternative' in the context it was used. (Seriously, Mr. Robot, you still can't stick with a yes or no?)
Business models focused on engagement aren't conducive to holding to statements made during at least one prior hearing. If both sides of the aisle are pointing that out, there's a problem. My guess is that problem's related to asking forgiveness over permission, only I expect at least two of these tech heads no longer feel the need to ask for either. (Koalas to you!)
Also, one of the people at the hearing quoted a person from inside one of the three organizations - it was gratifying to hear something along the lines of 'we write algorithms that do what we want them to.' It's a reminder to take with a lamp-sized grain of salt anyone who then turns the results of those algorithms on the people that these algorithms affect - going by that quote and the tenet of continuous engagement, the recommendations one gets are less affected by the end user than by those who created the algorithms in the first place. (Oof, have I got a fanfic that ties into that rabbithole; however, the fic in its entirety, let alone the chapter that specifically relates to the transformation of a mild vice into a force for destruction, is further beyond the pale than the fic I linked to earlier, even for me, who very much enjoyed reading both.)
- Democracy, not 白左. Full stop. And just to be perfectly clear, have some links for another (including a local) look at what makes up the bill that fundraiser e-mail blast numbers 2.0, if one is to speak about what's hellbent. (Or just plain old bent at this point, considering the 2.0 talking point made it into the script. If there's that much concern about vote solicitation by the use of promotional water bottles and snack bars, then what's the problem with serving unlabeled ones at a neutral booth unattended by anyone who would speak for either side?)
- Ending with this piece I very much enjoyed when it first came out. (Wonder at the watermarks? See the artist's comments.)