bruce511

"Copyright" covers a lot of areas, from films to books to software etc. So blanket statements about it are not helpful.

From the mention of LLMs I guess he means software copyright. But then refers to takedowns, which I don't see much of in the copyright space.

And possibly he's confusing copyright with patents?

For software, copyright I the only thing that protects Free Software. Without it GPL would not exist, and all GPL software could be used wherever without releasing sources.

Copyright most certainly protects small business against big business. It is the model on which most small software businesses are built.

Patents are bad, and if you replace the term "cooyright" with patent in the original article it makes more sense. But to be fair it's hard to put much credibility into a post that doesn't even understand that difference.

>> Copyright is serving exactly nobody today.

Are you sure about that?

So just to be clear;

You're advocating for the end of software licensing? Ie the removal of GPL or Open Source licenses? A landscape where any source code (or binary) can be snapped up by say Amazon or Microsoft and run via a paid subscription?

You're advocating for a business model which removes your access to local code and only allows access via a terminal or browser?

Because removal of copyright doesn't mean corporations go away. Rather it incentivizes business models that protect their products in other ways.

In the 80's and 90's, pre-internet, binary programs were distributed on media. An arms race of copiers and copy protection ensued. The copiers won, and since copyright enforcement has always been weak, business changed to favoring remote access (with subscription) over running locally via purchase.

At the same time Open Source and Free Software have thrived. Copyright protects that software being used outside the terms of the license. Indeed there's even outrage when it's used within the terms of the license (by AWS etc.)

Of course OSS still thrives under a copyrightless environment. (Free Software less so). But equally it means AI can simply be trained on it (probably no great loss since it's likely most of OSS will be AI generated anyway.)

Business however will adapt. And the easiest way to prevent coping now is simply remote execution. With a suitable Terms Of Use declaration.

Outside of software it would destroy music, movies, books etc. Basically it becomes a race to the bottom in terms of production costs (think user-generated You-Tube as the high-water mark.) But I assume you meant in the context of software.

Yes, I agree, that in much less than 1000 years copyright is dead. Because by then so much is in the public domain it doesn't matter anyway. Also because by then the last human programmer is long dead. AI will write anything you want, only you won't even ask because computer interfaces and abilities will be long past where we are now. You would have no need to create software any more than you need to build a plane or car today.

And those industries have taken less than 150 years to invent, explode, consolidate and commoditize. Indeed most of the complexity disappears when we go EV.

In 1000 years copyright is gone. But today it serves a lot of people.

I understand where you are coming from here. And there are multiple levers in play here.

The cost of a mortgage underpins the rental value. If there are multiple units for rent then there will be a "going rate" and that's certainly a part of the equation. In that sense some landlords get more cream than others, but that's capitalism in action.

There are however other costs that go into rental calculations. Perhaps the building has a supervisor, or rental agent. Perhaps utilities are included. There are typically property rates and taxes. There may be sectional title levies. That's before we talk about insurance, maintainence and so on. For a group of similar dwellings these costs will tend to be similar, and so the floor is set not just by the mortgage, but by including these costs as well.

If a extra cost comes along, which affects all the properties together, then that will just become part of the rental-floor equation. And yes, it's possible for that to be higher than people will pay, but that tends not to be the driving factor. People have to live somewhere and ultimately will pay whatever keeps them off the streets.

Of course people who own their own home will simply have an extra cost burden every year. There's no upside at all, and will result in more people not purchasing, but rather staying on the rental ladder. Indeed making purchase less attractive allows rents to get higher.

This is the problem with all economics. There are butterfly effects all over the place so "simple solutions" tend to have lots of unwelcome consequences. Trying to solve problems with taxes seldom ends well.

>> That costs the government nothing

The costs are actually substantial, but measured in things other than money. Countries have nationalised things in the past, including energy, (think Cuba, Venezuela, Iran etc). The real cost tends to be in lost investor confidence at the bottom end, up to massive sanctions at the top end.

>> because their profit margins would be limited by law

yes, and no. I've lived in a place where selling price was below cost price for electrcity (with a Govt run electricity production.) Ultimately the price is paid out of the budget, which in turn is not infinite. Pressure on the budget in turn leads to redicing costs - like proper maintainence. There's some serious long term pain that is at the end of this path.

>> So the solution is really that simple. Do not build power plants that burn fuels. The economics will push the next cheapest solution to the top.

That's not strictly accurate. It'll push the next most profitable solution to the top. If there's no solution that offers the desired rate of return, at acceptable risk levels, then private capital simple doesn't bother to arrive at all.

Govts don't need a reasonable rate of return, so they can fill that gap, assuming that it doesn't cost too much political capital. Yes we need base load, but that message gets lost when the opposition are complaining about high govt spending etc.

Storage is the holy grail here. That allows for more provision of wind and solar.

Look, I prefer nuclear over fossil fuel every day of the week. It's the great hope of the non-carbon electricity sources.

In practice it is expensive to build, expensive to run, and really expensive to clean up. And that's before we add the risk of meltdowns.

Economically it makes no sense, not at the returns level, not at the timescale level, and certainly not at the political level. (If a US president can shutter an offshore wind farm unilaterally, imagine the risk to a nuclear plant that is 50% complete, and not yet fueled.)

There's a reason they're mostly run by govts. Govts are the only providers who don't have a money motive.

Personally I think research into storage, coupled with "wider" grids geographically, make solar and wind far more financially attractive.

Private capital has no appetite for nuclear, and few govts are left with both financial ability, and political will, for 30 year projects.

And if you think fission is expensive, wait till you find out what fusion-on-earth costs...

Unfortunately that doesn't really help. It has the effect of eroding the asset value such that it quickly means the owner can't sell.

In other words, if selling removes much of your capital, you then don't gave capital to spend on the next place.

Conversely investors become even more motivated not to ever sell. They can defer the LVT forever, and just use the property as collateral for loans (ie getting liquidity without selling.)

And LVT just becomes an expense built into the cost of rent. The investor never pays it anyway, the tenant ultimately pays it.

Solar power on the roof of an EV car seems like an obvious play. And yes some energy can be derived this way. But it's important to understand the limitations of physics.

When the sun is directly overhead we get about 1kw per square metre. Very good panel effeciency is about 25%. ) I'm rounding a bit to make math easier.) The average car footprint is maybe 6 square meters. Obviously a lot of that is curved away from the sun, or is glass. 4 square meters here is perhaps a reasonable starting point.

Which means if we plaster the car with solar cells, we might get 1kw of output in pretty optimal conditions. Perhaps 12 hours of generation depending on latitude, time of year, and so on.

Most EV cars have 30 to 80 kw batteries (some more). So 12kw of charge per day is not nothing, but also not enough. Given pesky things like shade (from tall builings or trees), undercover parking, clouds and so on, daily average is much lower.

Solar film in general is great. But current pricing makes it cheaper to just install regular solar panels in most places. Less portable maybe, but more (financially) efficient to generate/store/charge as we currently do.

On the other hand the aesthetic of a solar panel car roof is very cool, and maybe covers the aircon power requirements on a hot day.

This. Plus I'll add that coding is the lowest point on the IT development ladder.

Just like crawling wasn't the end goal, neither is programming. I know learning how to do it felt great (so did crawling) but there's still a long way to go.

The market in the US may be growing less strongly than elsewhere, but there are somewhat unique circumstances involved in that.

One is political - Energy in the US is highly political, and the oil and coal lobbies are both influential and regressive. This leads to EVs becoming a political statement rather than an active choice.

Second is size. Americans tend to drive further so range does matter. More range means more cost. And even Americans who don't ever go further than 20 miles entertain at least the idea of a cross-country road trip.

So I get where you are coming from. But I'd also say that the US is different to the world in general. In Europe I saw charging infrastructure everywhere. (Streetlight poles contained chargers, all the way down the street.) Electric busses were the norm. Electric cars everywhere.

Like I said earlier, a tipping point is coming. Naturally it'll happen sooner in some places than others. The US will likely be towards the back.

The problem for US automakers is that by the time they see a local market, they'll be well behind the curve in development. I don't think a GM will be able to compete in product (never mind price) to a BYD et al.

Would you say that non-profit insurance companies and non-profit hospitals are the norm in the US? Or is your area an outlier?

Hence the concept of trade partnerships. No country makes everything, and yes, there's lots of competition.

Tarifs have existed since forever. Countries use them to protect local industries. But they've always been stable, and industry focused.

Food production for example is worth protecting and Canada has tarifs on imported Dairy. Partnerships exist to protect local industries, promote exports, and give citizens access to cheap goods. It's a complex balance set up over time with lots of nuance and negotiating.

Yes, sometimes tarifs kill a local industry as well. Lack of international competition let's local industry stagnate until it is dead. US ship building is a good example of this, and US Auto makers are trending in this direction. (Banning Chinese EVs is not bolstering the US EV production, it is causing the US manufacturers to ignore that market, and I don't think that ends well.)

Tarifs are a powerful tool when wielded well. Alas right now the US in unstable. Local industries can't rely on tarifs existing next week, never mind 5 years from now. I'm not investing in a local hockey stick factory because the tarif could disappear at any time.

In my country we get cheap solar panels from China. Frankly, let them sell below-cost if they like. (Hint, they're not below cost). We don't make them here, so cheap energy is good for all.

The US negativity to Chinese goods seems to be around dumping (which happens, but not much), around quality (frankly much of it is very good) or around human rights. (Cause, you know, we bombed Iran to promote human rights...)

I don't think Americans will suddenly love China. But the rest of the world is getting very cosy very quickly.

They don't need to be part of the administration.

More than 50% of voters voted for Trump. Even today >30% (of everyone) think he's doing a good job. (Ie about equal to the voters in absolute number terms). Lots of people believe eat he is doing is legal simply because he is doing it.

And trade. The last 18 months the US has shown itself to be a unreliable trade partner. Lots of companies are looking at diversifying both markets and supply chains.

The recent trip of the Canadian PM to China is but the most visible part of this shift. That's at govt level, but I've seen it happen all the way down to individual level.

US products are typically more expensive here than Chinese. But at least you were buying from a friendly supplier. That distinction is eroding quickly. In my experience it's forced people to try Chinese, and generally been surprised (in a good way) over quality and features.

And yes, the price of oil has focused people much more at the EV market. (Not least because people with an EV already aren't shy about gloating). Pretty much everyone I talk to, who would buy a car "new" tells me their next one will be electric. The tipping point is coming much faster than most people think.

Web development is the lowest form of programming, it is the easiest to learn, is very transient, and has a lot of competition for low wages.

Doctor though is hard to learn, is highly skilled, the peak of their professional space, and so on.

I fell you've picked two alternatives that are poles apart. Surely there are choices between those 2? Have you considered moving up the programming food chain? Or perhaps a medical role that's not a doctor?

I'll be honest, once you said you won't respond to protect "well being" I don't think you'd like being a Dr. Sounds like you're looking for a low-stress environment (and medicine is not that). How are you going to cope with patients dying?

I think it would be helpful for you to see a psychologist to really understand your current feelings and motivations before you make large life choices. Jumping randomly out of the frying pan doesn't always end well.

While your experience is valuable, it may not be universal.

The US operates a for-profit health system. That has an impact on all the players. The OP is European (although doesn't say which country) ; most of Europe has a for-health health system. As such there is less incentive to churn through patients as fast as possible.

Personally I have experienced public health, and while clearly every interaction, hospital, country etc is different, I have not experienced time pressures. Sometimes the doc visit takes 5 minutes. One time over 2 hours. Of course the balance is a wait in the queue, which can be substantial, but I'm in the fortunate position that I can take a day off when necessary.

While neither system is perfect, overall I prefer the one which prioritzes good health outcomes.

He's not saying the US doesn't have a culture. He's saying the US is large and diverse and has multiple cultures. Thus trying to define "American culture" is difficult.

The point is valid, but perhaps not relevant. Broadly, yes, Americans are easy to spot abroad. Attitude, behavior etc are all part of culture.

Yes, an American from NY and one from Alabama will have massive differences, but culture (anywhere) doesn't mean that people are all the same.

Deep down, if you substitute "culture" for "race" in most (not all) conversations you get a much closer understanding of the real problem. For example the first lady is an immigrant, but clearly the right kind.

Around 85 members of the current congress are over 70. 13 are over 80.

You've got some weird looking hands :)

I don't think you need to worry.

The cynic in me thinks there's no worry because I am struggling to imagine who would use this. I mean, who is your target market?

Who cares enough about a book to read other people's notes, while not reading the book? High schoolers? Book Club members?

And who is going to the effort to write notes and share them publicly? People who want discussion with other people who haven't read the book?

If you were building community around those who had read a book, and wanted to discuss it; that at least makes more sense. But I'm also pretty sure I don't want to hang out with the kind of person who would love a site like that.

I get it, I read a lot, and this is a site for non-readers, so I'm not your target market.

Back to the legal question, let's assume for the moment, that you build a community. What exactly is your legal concern? Copyright? I assume you aren't posting the whole book right? Other than providing book downloads I'm not sure what legal issues you expect to encounter?

Thank you for posting. I'm being sincere.

I think it is helpful to remind folk that these policies are not universally hated. Indeed a majority of voters voted specifically for them, and they were explicitly laid out.

This is democracy in action. The majority (of those who care enough at all) get to rule over the minority (and the apathetic). Obviously not all actions will be universally loved, but no govt action can ever be universally loved.

My thesis is that no-one understands. So there's no political orientation.

Your suggestion suggests that a little bit of technical education would change political allegiance. Alas that is incorrect. Politics is about worldview (me and mine versus you and yours) and a world view cannot be changed by something as mundane as education.

Each person has both a self-centered side, and a community-centered side. For some it's mostly self centered. For others mostly community centered. Politics is about finding out which side the population has swung to.

If you changed "most" to "all" you'd be well inside the margin or error.

There's a reason actuaries get paid the big bucks.

>> found that 62% of respondents reported no or limited statistical knowledge

The other 38% didn't understand the question...(my extrapolation)

I did a couple semesters of statistics at uni. And I can confidently say that the number of people who can answer 3 simple questions on statistics (like say mean versus medians, confidence levels or margins of error) is, well, a rounding error from 0.

Indeed, statistically, no-one has a clue how statistics work.

I did however learn enough to know that statistics can tell you absolutely anything you want them to say. Assuming you don't just make them up, they're trivial to manipulate to generate the headline you want.

When used to evaluate risk, the comprehension goes down further (a fact willfully exploited by any decent marketing.)

Statistically, most statistics are meaningless.

Paul does seem to be somewhat aware that his thesis is "optimize for founders at everyone else's expense".

I mean, if you want the university to churn out plumbers then by all means do plumber things.

I'm somewhat less sure that optimizing for founders turns out better, or even more, founders. Ultimately probably 1% or less of people start a business (of any form, much less venture capital financed.)

You can't give people time and expect them to "create". Creators create not because it's convenient, they create in spite of it being inconvenient. They find the time regardless. (And universities already have scads of free time.)

95% of startups will fail. That statistic does not cause a founder to retreat. And that perseverance when the odds are poor is exactly why some succeed.

"Can it be done?" is one question. "Is it done dilligently by all the programmers on the team?" is quite another.

For me, one of the primary benefits of ORMs is that they can parameterize requests which then prevents SQL injection attacks.

Passing raw SQL to the database needs very careful attention to the dynamic parts, and it's too easy for user-generated data to be included.

Yes, it's possible to pass user generated text through a sanitizer but now you just have an arms race between the sanitizer and "clever" users.

I mean sure. But in this case the electoral college matched up to the popular vote. I'm not surecwhy you doubt that in the 2024 result?

I don't think Canada loses the US market. The implication is that if the product gets more expensive then the US simply stops using it, or sources elsewhere.

Take hockey sticks. Does this mean Minnesota stops playing hockey? Or they play without sticks? Or maybe they'll buy their sticks from...?

Where I live there was much doom and gloom. Then our exports went up....

Of course small exporters are predicting calamity. It's a good sound bite, and it's definitely the obvious prediction. I'm just not convinced it'll have that effect.

I think there's a notion that the imposition of tarifs will ultimately affect the amount the country imports. However that stick only kinda-sorta works.

As a reference - in the country I live in, exports to the US rose in the year after "liberation day". Because of 2 things; Americans like to buy stuff and tarifs imposed on everyone doesn't cause importers to source elsewhere - it's just business as usual.

Take for example something as mundane as coffee. Do tarifs mean Americans drink less? (perhaps not). Do they grow more locally (well, no, not least because of ramp-up time to new production.) Tarifs are just a local tax on consumerism.

So take your example above. 25% of the Canadian GDP goes to the US. The question then becomes how much of that is going to be sourced elsewhere instead? And can Canada find an alternative market to make up the difference?

About 30% (of that 25% above) is oil & gas etc. That's easilly sellable on the global market. Not that they'll need to, the US customer will simply pay more. The next 21% is car parts, machinery etc. US Auto makers are already dependent on external parts - maybe they can get them from somewhere else? Somewhere without already higher tarifs?

Other big chuncks are Consumer, Forestry and Industrial goos (15%), Metas (12%) and agriculture (10%). None of these are easily sourced (cheaper) elsewhere.

In other words, tarifs make for good headlines. And there will inevitably be some winners and losers. But the effect on Canada's GDP will be minor. I'm not even sure that Canada needs to reciprocate - Canadian consumers are very good at simply not buying American products. No govt can force the Canadian people to buy Budwizer....

>> If both countries decide to start ramping up tariffs, one of them is going to collapse and one won't even notice a difference.

I agree, but probably not the same way you think. It's US suppliers who depend on exports that very much will notice. American products are very expensive, and Canada is one of the few markets where they are viable. That's why DJT is so upset with alcohol bans in Canada. There are lots of markets for Canadian goods. And ultimately this whole process is encouraging Canadian producers to explore some of those markets, which in the long run is good for Canada.

I agree he did not win the popular vote in 2016 or 2020. (I'm not sure what reflection that is on "democracy" in 2016, but hey.)

However he did win the popular vote in 2024. Meaning that people took a look at his first term, took a look at the Binden years, and thought to themselves "hey, I prefer the first guy". (Or perhaps althernativly, "no way I'm voting for a woman"),

I guess this is democracy in action right? Optimizing for popularity over quality.