He spoke carelessly, but he didn't exactly say what the author said he said. You can in fact do many things with it. Copyright doesn't care what you do if you aren't copying. That's the definition of the word.

To be clear, all of the big media groups and all of the big AI companies are in favor of expanding copyright law to give themselves more power. If one of them wins or loses on an issue like this, it doesn't improve our life in any way.

Everyone has their own opinion, but I think the problem with AI is not that people are developing fancy Turing test machines, but rather that the whole industry is full of cynical speculation where people are getting rich knowing that they can't deliver what they've promised, at great expense to everyone else in society.

My interpretation of the article is that it's a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that's a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that's not a bribe.

Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.

That was .. not convincing. I'm here to learn things. Why are you?

What a joke of a headline. That's not what making ends meet means. They are wealthy, by definition they can afford to make ends meet.

Comedy in general. Others have given specific examples of things that are discriminatory, including racism and sexism.

On the one hand, it's sad to realize that your old favorite movie is no longer that, but when you realize why I think it's actually uplifting. You can feel that you've learned something, you've improved as a human being, that you care more about society.

And because there are many genres other than comedy, it's not like you lost all of your favorite movies.

I like how they already frame it as him taking the bait. Because they're desperate to have an excuse, and they want to blame the moderator or his opponent for tricking him into being an a******.

They know that he will, they know that he'll say ridiculous things, and they're trying to come up with as many preemptions strategies as they can.

Since long ago, my friend. Citizens United was a landmark in my opinion, although there are probably older rulings that showed how little they care about basic functionality in a democracy.

Historically that's not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It's just that they do so much damage while they're around.

And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.

Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it's more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.

What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it's not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.

Yes. My interpretation is that the above person knew that, but they didn't think it was even a remotely funny joke, not that they didn't understand what the implication was.

Is there anything specific to open source about this question? If you're a software developer, you might have to decide whether you want to work for a shady company, or whether you want your smaller company to contract with a larger shady company. Those are I think harder decisions to make, because it could be your job on the line.

In the open source world, at least you don't know for sure what people are going to do with your work.

But we do know that if a company is looking to be evil, it's probably going to find a way, whether or not it uses your library.

I don't think your definition of middle class is what most people use when they talk about it.

This is really obvious if you think about people remarking on the death of the middle class. They're not saying that the mean or the median doesn't exist. They are saying that families like the Simpsons are much less common than they used to be.

I'm down with anything. The point is that your rent is not high because Bob has two houses. It's because the real estate speculators own five thousand.

Isn't this why we'd expect new users to use a built-in package manager? Because it avoids this exact problem?

I feel that you missed one basic aspect of economics. Competition is one reason prices might go up. There are other reasons, which are relevant here. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing, goods that people can't live without, speculation, those are also reasons that prices go up.

In the housing market, it's not fair, it's not free, this isn't a basic supply and demand situation.

I think we agree, with the caveat that you need to be careful when stating a position like yours, because it's often used as an excuse to do nothing at all.

I was having trouble understanding what you meant because you didn't think about the obvious implications of millions of properties being unloaded in a short time.

If the number of landlords drastically increases, which would happen when you have mass property sales, then there's more competition, and rent goes down.

Or, depending on your setup, the government seizes some of the properties that people refuse to sell, and turns them into public housing. This also drives rent down.

So then, what happens? Oh yeah, both buyers and renters win. Was that clear enough? Perhaps I should write in all caps.

Oh my God oh my God if the landlords have to sell, that would be... Check notes... That would be really good for people who want to buy houses.

Child slave labor. Jesus. Prison time for the owners please.

I think you aree using the word "consciousness" without having actually defined it, thus leading to an observation that sounds remarkable but might not be at all.

To be precise, I have no idea what you mean by lower levels of consciousness. Certainly there are systems that build upon each other, but where do you think consciousness resides other than where people ordinarily think it resides? And I mean this seriously. There might be some discussion about dreaming and subconsciousness, but at most that's giving us three different types or levels of consciousness. What you wrote clearly describes more levels, and I just don't know what they could be or where you think they are.

I hope that you're not specifically talking about Israel Palestine because if so that particular issue has so many different people with very strong wildly divergent views that simply trying to define what "fake news is would be a political decision".

For anyone out there who doesn't want to browse to TikTok, the short version is that the Reddit communications staff refuses to comment on information that's being used for upcoming stories, and instead they say that they will issue corrections after the fact.

This is of course an old tactic that companies have tried to use to discredit reporters, but it doesn't work very well when you tell everyone that you're using it.

This is not any kind of modern "AI". This is a fancy version of "key word filtering". It's been done for decades. Why, tech writers, why must you not use your brains when writing these articles? ... We aren't going to believe a word you write if you can't get basic facts figured out.

I love how Fortune always deflects from the actual issue: wages aren't matching prices, which means the average American is getting screwed by company owners and wealthy investors, at work, at the bank, at university.

It's not about interest rates or inflation, although those are both relevant. If inflation were evenly balanced, it wouldn't hurt most people, right? That is definitional. And high interest rates block house purchases, but in theory they also benefit house owners who have fixed interest rates. So again, if people were able to afford houses in the yhr past few decades, this wouldn't be such a big issue.

As we all know, the word "economy" means "rich people's yachts".

No. Trump didn't keep his fingerprints off anything. If you were looking, insiders and moles were leaking the entire plan in real time. Things didn't get mainstream media documentation, but they were not big secrets.

I wonder how many ultra conservative Reacher fans realize that the author is British. Probably very few, which is entertaining for the irony although doesn't really matter much in general.

Of course they are, because now you have this whole affair to write about. You were good enough to graduate from Harvard, so good that you got famous because of your just actions, and then you got a degree from somewhere else.

If you want to work at some unethical company, they might not take you, but if if it's a place that has some semblance of integrity, then your resume is rock solid.

Did we actually believe any of them at the time? I think they already knew that remote work was going to continue, and they were trying to get as much money out of the transition as possible.

One problem was that they had wasted real estate, and they had to justify it to shareholders. So they pretended that they were going to bring everyone back to the office.

If you think about it from a medium run perspective, of course employers are going to want more remote work because then they don't have to pay for utilities or parking or rent or buildings. Of course this depends on the exact setup, but for many businesses it was clear from the beginning of the pandemic where things were going to go. And if we want to get even more cynical, we can point out that when your labor pool spans the country or even the world, you have a greater ability to underpay employees.

Liberals are not leftists. You can choose your own definitions, but I would say that many so-called liberals are actually pro-capitalist anti-worker centrists. And the center is not so far from the center-right. So many liberals don't hate conservatives. On the other hand, many conservatives bundle liberals and leftists together, because complexity is so irritating, making it easy to hate the entire group (even though it's actually at least two groups).

And quite obviously, many liberals and leftists hate some conservatives. You aren't alone. That being said, hate is an emotion, and however you feel is totally fine because it's your life. At the same time, hate itself is not constructive. Many people read and write about politics online because we want to learn about or change our world. If the content you're creating doesn't help with either of those goals, some people are going to ignore or down vote it.

Anyway, your community is surely out there, if you keep looking.

The vast majority of Americans are worse off economically than they were before the pandemic. This was in the news just last week. NBC says "good economy" and the people say "pull the other one".

Even if Lindsey Graham was right about everything he said, and of course he's not, then at worst we would have a situation where Tiger Woods is suspected of tax fraud. If so, great. File charges against him. File charges against all rich people who commit tax fraud.

It's a nice dream, isn't it? But Lindsey Graham can't even imagine it.

Twenty plus years we could have shared pop culture. If it was on the radio or popular cable TV, maybe many people saw it. But now there's too much information, period. Everyone specializes. If you expect people to know their memes, you're pressuring them to consume the same media they do. Not cool.

So, float the meme, why not. But expect it to flop. Be happily surprised when it doesn't.

Capitalism is the answer. Greed, unchecked profits.

1. Always record the police.
2. STFU.

But sometimes you can tell that the police will get violent if you don't lick their boots, so if you have to change your game plan, do what you need to do to.

The prosecution generally can't call you as a witness in your own trial. The defense could, but if the defense does then the prosecution is allowed to question you.

Apparently it's complicated, but if you answer some questions and then stop answering questions, it could put you in a week or legal position than if you had stayed off of the stand to begin with. According to the below website, it's possible that the judge could order you to answer questions if you tried to stop halfway through. But even if they didn't, once you've gotten on the stand and remain silent, the prosecution is allowed to comment on your refusal to testify, and the jury might take that into account when it deliberates.

From a practical standpoint, trying to get on the stand and answer some questions but then stop before saying anything that could theoretically be incriminating is incredibly difficult to do. Even things that you don't think might make you look bad could somehow make you look bad in certain circumstances that you cannot predict, and it's difficult to say exactly the right thing in unambiguous terms when you're in a highly stressful environment like a trial.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/your-fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

You forgot the biggest most originalist one of all. Email.

It wasn't a mistake. Did they make money? ... Checks notes ... lots of it.

Whatever you do, please don't claim or believe that there's only two sides. So many different people have so many goals.