I think you missed the joke here: how can OTA updates fix improper hardware installation?

Yeah, this one was a huge no-brainer. I don’t understand how they thought they would win the case. Not that I support copyright! Pirate everything. But if you’re going to put up a big sign saying “please sue us”... it’s gonna happen.

Just modify the sample to make it unrecognizable, and then who could even tell? That’s what diffusion models do - comparing them to sampling is either ignorant or dishonest. They are not creating collages. And even if they were, collage art has largely been considered transformative in copyright case law. It’s…

Just subscribe for a single month and binge the ones you most want to see. It takes a little discipline, but it beats subscribing to everything all the time.

Some kids are in for a surprise when they misspell the character’s name and google “kif” instead. Kinda surprised no one at Disney pointed this out...

You didn’t address my main question: where would he get enough unbiased information to NOT be insanely out of touch? I mean, he’s a mass-murderer, so he’s definitely deeply mentally ill on top of it all. But come on: are you really arguing this psychopath understands other humans even a little bit?

You think the man who won’t even SIT close to anyone, let alone talk to anyone outside a small circle of advisors, isn’t out of touch? His own intelligence services lie to him to curry favor - what avenue does he even have for objective information?

Do you feel the same about people cheating in offline sports? Like if you’re playing a friendly game of basketball, you have no problem with people fouling left and right or just travelling down half the court? And if that’s “different” to you, I’d genuinely like to know: why?

Your comparison is silly. Clothing doesn’t “spoil,” and the characteristics of clothing that are valued by wealthy customers are frequently not the same characteristics valued by poor customers. It couldn’t be less like the market for tomatoes.

These conversations really demonstrate how flawed our collective understanding of the purpose of copyright is. It’s not to codify some natural moral right of creators - it exists solely to incentivize creative labor by allowing them to exclusively profit from their work for a period of time. So unless and until society…

Nobody “needs” trendy clothes that an influencer would sell. People need clothes that are durable, professional, and machine-washable. I’ve done plenty of thrifting in my life, and the stores in my area have never lacked for clothing in those categories in a huge range of sizes.

I’ve never donated clothes to a thrift store assuming they would all go to poor people. They end up with a whole range of people - it’s simply a better solution than throwing my clothes in the garbage (even though that happens to a huge percentage of donated clothes anyways).

Stop making shit up. Thrift stores are not “running out of clothes” for low-income people - they may just throw a slightly smaller percentage of donated clothes in the garbage now. Find me a place in the US where thrift stores don’t have enough clothes to sell and I’ll eat my words, but I really don’t think you will.…

If you think that resellers are draining thrift stores of clothes so poor people have nothing to wear, you are so poorly informed on this topic that you’d be better off staying silent. Thrift stores throw out a HUGE percentage of donated clothes - not because they’re unwearable, but because they simply don’t have…

SCOTUS rules on the law as it relates to the Constitution. As for Congress not knowing how tech works: lobby them! That’s literally the entire point of lobbying - to bring expert advice to bear on the legislative process. It ain’t perfect, but good luck designing a better system.

But they’re not ill-informed *by design* the way SCOTUS is. Congress can bring in experts, hold hearings, even allow lobbyists to write the legislative language. SCOTUS can’t do any of that - I believe they even have to wait for experts to file an amicus brief rather than go looking for their input proactively.

What does “fair use” have to do with Section 230 protection? S230 is all that’s at play here, so when he says Large Language Model content isn’t “protected” he means that the company that owns the LLM system doesn’t get legal immunity if their ChatBot generates illegal content. He’s saying that, though the LLM was…

I love that you demand that asexual people stop discussing the allosexual experience, and then instantly deputize yourself to speak up for all the ace people you “know.” Do you honestly think this poster knows no allosexual people? They surely do - so why is their experience speaking to allosexual people less valid…

There’s no way that more than 99% of the population identifies as allosexual - your source for that is “this just feels right to me.” There’s nothing BUT bias there, and if you’re not bringing new data to a discussion, you’re just making things up - lying.

Why oh why do rational adults ever cite “dictionary definitions”? First of all, there isn’t just one dictionary, and every dictionary has slightly different definitions. That should give you pause right there.