Eh, not really then. If you have some behavior in those 50 copy/pastes that needs to be deleted, you’ve got to delete it 50 times. That’s not easier at all.

I feel that they would at least change the framing instead of directly mirroring the OP. “Hating people for no reason but their race” is pretty clearly the definition of racism. Usually racists reframe their argument as actually being about criminality or at the very least some fear of cultural change.

I was seriously considering adding a /s but I was like nah, that’s lame it should be obvious.

The real racists are the ones calling people racist just because they hate people for no reason but race.

… any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

This fact is why abortion restrictions are unethical period. In no other situation do we allow the government to force a person to give up parts of their body to keep someone else alive, even their own child. But most people aren’t ready to hear that.

So they don’t give a shit that he’s doing it.

Well half the country either doesn’t give a shit that he’s doing it or are straight up happy about it. It’s literally like watching Hitler rise to power.

Apparently not the Dementors in Harry Potter. However, the suspense when Harry might get in trouble with the school admin is too much to watch.

My kids love the box just as much

There are multiple facets here that all kinda get mashed together when people discuss this topic and the publicly available/public domain difference kinda gets at that.

• An AI company downloading a publicly available work isn’t a violation of copyright law. Copyright gives the owner exclusive right to distribute their work. Publishing it for anybody to download is them exercising that right.
• Of course, if the work isn’t publicly available and the AI company got it, someone probably did violate copyright laws, likely the people who distributed the data set to the company because they’re not supposed to be passing around the work without the owner’s permission.
• All that is to say, downloading something isn’t making a copy. Sending the work is making a copy, as far as copyright is concerned. Whether the person downloading it is going to use it for something profitable doesn’t really change anything there. Only if they were to become the sender at some later point does it matter. In other words, there’s no violation of copyright law by the company that can really occur during the whole “training” phase of AI development.
• Beyond that, AI isn’t in the business of serving copies of works. They might come close in some specific instances, but that’s largely a technical problem that developers want to fix than a fundamental purpose of these models.
• The only real case that might work against them is whether or not the works they produce are derivative… But derivative/transformative has a pretty strict legal definition. It’s not enough to show that the work was used in the creation of a new work. You can, for example, create a word cloud of your favorite book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, or produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie. None of these could exist without deriving from a copyrighted work but none of them count as a legally derivative work.
• I chose those examples because they are basic statistical analyses not far from what AI training involves. There’s a lot of aspects of a work that are not covered by copyright. Style, structure, factual information. The kinds of things that AI is mostly interested in replicating.
• So I don’t think we’re going to see a lot of success in taking down AI companies with copyright. We might see some small scale success when an AI crosses a line here or there. But unless a judge radically alters the bounds of copyright law, at everyone’s detriment, their opponents are going to have an uphill battle to fight here.

It’s a pretty typical part of their style. Often they’re wearing ties. Sometimes even a suit.

You’d better not be reading on the toilet!

Kid legitimately prefers reading in the bathroom to doing it in his room and will spend well over an hour in there because of it. It’s a problem when we’ve got somewhere to be…

Kid: I forgot.
Me: You need to work on remembering things a bit better.
Kid: Well somebody told me that as you get older you can’t remember things as well.
Me: Not at 7 years old!
Kid: Well maybe you told me and you just don’t remember.

To be fair, they haven’t stopped using hard language either. They released a statement after his “you won’t have to vote ever again” rambling with very direct warnings about how dangerous he is and has been. “Weird” is just another line of attack, hoping to cut in a way that might resonate with some more than the (imo rightful) high stakes talk.

My understanding of the ruling is that, no, a law cannot do this. The ruling is mostly a separation of powers argument. Basically, if the president is not above the law then that means that Congress can override the Constitution by writing a law that, for example, makes the President’s constitutional duties illegal. Therefore, the president is allowed to officially do anything he wants limited only by the Constitution.

Obligatory: this is not an endorsement of the ruling and IANAL. It’s an awful ruling and terrible for the present and future of our country. It’s a violation of primary ideals of democracy and it needs to be overturned ASAP.

Harris is not the country’s leader yet. She is likely to be selected as the candidate by the Democratic party, but ultimately the party is a private organization that can do basically whatever it wants to select that candidate. That’s not fascism. That’s freedom of association. In the end, nobody has to vote for the Democrats nor the Republicans. Anybody can be on the ballot with enough popular support, no party needed.

Parties hold primaries because, ultimately, they need votes to win an election and primaries help gauge the people who will be voting. At the time of the primaries, the voters still overwhelmingly selected Biden. But in the time since, polls show large majorities of those voters support both Biden’s departure and Harris as the replacement. So this is still likely the right move if the party is trying to appeal to the public.

It does and they’re kinda weird (if you’re used to more like Java-style interfaces). It flips the dependency between the interface and implementor on its head. Worth looking it up, it’s interesting.

The joke is that the whole world could go to sleep/wake up/work at the exact same time, day or night.

The links to the older articles are dead in that link. Here’s an archive of the 3rd essay (and it links to the second and first). The 3rd essay presents a thought experiment very close to what OP is asking. If we delay the choice of inserting a detector then would we still get an interference pattern when we’re not supposed to? It seems that the question is still unanswered but theoretically, no, because the universe is not locally real and quantum effects seem to happen faster than light in plenty of other experiments.

I’m not. You just missed a few words from the original post. “The average US President has been indicted on 1.54 felony counts.” That makes more sense. There have only been 2 indictments but many felony charges within them.