harles

I don’t fully follow this, but this seems to be the crux of the ruling:

> The Rogers test is "not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods - in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark," Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

…

> VIP had conceded that it used "Bad Spaniels" as a trademark.

They then make a comparison to the song Barbie Girl (apparently also resulted in a lawsuit but with the opposite outcome), since that uses a trademark not as a trademark.

This all seems to be about specifically whether the Rogers Test[0] applies, with brand confusion questions still requiring proof later (probably by a lower court):

> The whiskey maker will still have to prove VIP's toys are likely to confuse potential customers into thinking it was affiliated with them in order to win its infringement case.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

Three sentence summaries probably wouldn’t qualify for copyright protection. The same should be true of code - if we think the standard for copyright protection is too low, we should raise the bar on complexity requirements, not throw out copyright.

Even if a programming grammar is more restrictive, there’s some length where things become almost certainly unique.

> In one, everytime someone publishes code with a license attached, they've taken a chunk out of the set of valid lines of software capable of being permissibly written without license encumberance.

If this were true of copyright, we would’ve run out of permissible novels a long time ago. There’s plenty to complain about with how software IP works, but copyright seems pretty sane. The alternative of protecting IP via trade secret is not a world I want to live in. That seems bad for open source.

It’s possibly his first offense (no knowledge on that). What I was trying to say is that folks rarely get caught their first time doing something nefarious, which makes stiffer penalties important in my opinion.

Unless he wasn’t the first and this possibly wasn’t his first time. All we really know is it’s the first time for someone to get caught and penalized for this. Serious penalties seem reasonable in my opinion.

Examples or even anecdotes. There aren’t allegations in the article of any sort of union busting, other than someone is suing without details of what the person is alleging.

This reads more like a highly opinionated blog post. I’m not saying its claims aren’t true, but it certainly doesn’t bother to present hard evidence. It’s also just a bizarre list of complaints, primarily that Meta should have a larger presence in Kenya and give better amenities.

> Even if Meta could make the argument that it has no concrete ties to subcontracting companies in Kenya that operate on its behalf, it’s clear the social media company has no intention of bolstering its content moderation operations there.

I’m not sure how work force size got conflated with union busting.

> By working through contracting companies, Meta is immune from having to pay for workers’ health care or transportation — even daily meals and entertainment, which are amenities most of its full-time employees around the world not only enjoy but expect.

It’s weird to aim this at Meta. It also doesn’t say that they’re not receiving these benefits - just that Meta doesn’t pay for them, which is how I’d expect a vendor to work.

Edit, also:

> Facebook could choose to directly employ moderators rather than outsourcing them to companies like Sama in Kenya or Accenture in the United States. They could give them the same pay, benefits, and mental health cover as Facebook’s employees at Menlo Park …

Asking for Silicon Valley wages in Kenya is just bizarre.

What an odd article. The title and contents don’t match (at least the title and main example where a candidate disqualified himself by asking annoying questions). I’m honestly not sure what point the author is trying to make.

> he finds a loophole/backdoor into getting access to a copy.

I wouldn’t call stealing, even a high effort one, a loophole any more than I’d call shoplifting a life hack.

I’m not sure it matters much that the current model can’t reproduce Harry Potter verbatim. If it can do smaller more quoted works now, it’ll tackle larger more obscure things in the future. It’s just a matter of time until it can output large copyrighted works, meaning the question of what to do when that happens is pretty relevant right now.

The title here is misleading (the original wasn’t great, but calling it a “ban” is even worse). It looks like this just ramps up penalties for already illegal activities, such as blocking major roads (as recently happened). Pretending this bans something new is disingenuous.

> Tesla self-driving is better than a bad human driver.

Genuine question: what evidence is there of this?

The problem is disproportionate scale. At what point is an amber alert likely to cause more harm than good. Is notifying 2m people likely to cause at least one accident? How about every person in the country?

The real issue I have isn’t the missing child alerts (it’s not clear they’re helpful, but sure, for the kids), it’s that the system has been diluted with silver alerts and the whole thing is bundled together. When I switched off the alerts, I was receiving 20-50 silver alerts for every amber alert. I just can’t imagine how such a system creates more good than harm. And from an engineering perspective, why is a “stop the world” notification rather than a “look out for this old person” notification? Someone isn’t being actively kidnapped.

It’s unfortunate that, at least in California, silver alerts are bundled with amber alerts. The volume of silver alerts was so high (several a week) that I turned them off which also turned off amber alerts.

I have to wonder what the cost/benefit tradeoff is when blasting out an alert to a couple million people. Some of those folks will be driving or in others situations where a full volume unmutable alert is a safety risk.

I switched to Colemak for 6 years and then back quite some time ago (something like 2009-2015). Colemak was certainly more comfortable as the author noted but I found enough friction that I switched back:

* Shared machines are hard to avoid when working on hardware like I was.

* There’s a lot of lost value in not being able to just sit down at someone else’s machine and navigate/code/etc. The reverse is also true of not easily having other people use your machine.

* If you game, this can be really hard. Some games attempt to do the right thing (e.g. WASD => WARS) but auxiliary things like “I” for inventory are less clear. Do you keep I to have the mnemonic or keep the physical spot? Caps lock to backspace can also mess with games that have chosen, for god knows what reason, to make caps lock a hot key. I spent a ton of time editing undocumented keymap files, and that’s not how I want to spend my leisure time.

* Not having caps lock means that if you somehow get caps lock turned on, it’s a pain to get it turned back off. This did happen to me multiple times - I used AHK for the remap and it’ll occasionally fail, usually due to external factors like an aborted system shutdown.

* You have to touch type. Getting physical Colemak keyboard for all cases (especially laptops) just isn’t feasible. This meant no more one handed typing or searching for hot keys when gaming (because I’m off the home row and I couldn’t build one handed muscle memory without a physical colemak keyboard).

* Lots of custom shortcuts are needed. It’s great that core copy/cut/paste/undo are kept in the same spots, but if you become power user of something like photoshop, you have to either remap all the shortcuts (again losing many mnemonics) or lose ergonomics as related keys spread out to odd spots when they should be clustered.

* You never really get rid of QWERTY muscle memory (at least 6 years on it with lots of focused practice, I didn’t). My overall amount of typos went way up compared to QWERTY. Also, and this is what finally made me switch back, the passwords I knew by muscle memory turned out to be different than what I thought I was typing. I had a password I could type, but didn’t know it (I swapped a fewer characters without realizing it). When I had to input this on a phone, I realized I couldn’t do that without first typing it on a physical keyboard.

* Virtual keyboards, such as on game consoles, are usually QWERTY (or alphabetical, yuck) and being able to touch type QWERTY does speed up their use.

In the end I accepted that we live in a QWERTY world and we’re too far down the rabbit hole to change. I find giving up some efficiency a worthwhile tradeoff for a drastic reduction in edge cases and overall fiddliness.

I’ve never really understood picking favorites for music, games, movies, etc. I’ve always found “what’s your favorite <x>?” a hard question to answer. What’s wrong with enjoying things without ranking them? Do other people find ranking somehow increases their enjoyment?

> The content is mostly written by subject matter experts that contribute large blocks of useful text to just a few articles each.

That sounds like the ideal scenario. Any evidence that it is or isn’t this way? I would guess it’s skewed more towards a handful of folks simply writing many articles about things they’re moderately knowledgeable about.

It could use a (2019) in the title. Interesting, but not recent.

Certainly helps with their next set of grant proposals.

Not a recent example, but the Ellipsoid Method[0] is a famous example of this. It took a class of problems (Linear Programs) from NP to P in 1979 but was completely impractical (I want to say something like N^6). It has an interesting history worth a read - it was also a big USSR contribution to the field, which there weren’t many of at the time.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid_method

I suspect this isn’t the case. Even when I’m in a great mood, I find myself drawn more to negative headlines. I wonder if it’s related to our odd loss aversion behavior[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

The quote says the opposite of that. Depositors are not investors or owners. How can so many people misread this?

I don’t understand this debate. The article says nothing about whether or not depositors will be bailed out.

> “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out . . . and the reforms that have been put in place means we are not going to do that again,” Yellen said.

The headline is misleading and much of the discussion I’m seeing is based on that. Looking at the quote, there’s no mention of whether or not depositors will be bailed out.

> Are there good reasons to believe they're safe, that the brands are trustworthy?

There are good reasons to believe Anker is not trustworthy [0].

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/eufys-no-clouds-came...

I would guess that’s where Dias started. His thesis probably wasn’t his first piece of academic fraud. After getting away with fraud for so long, it’s possible the fraud got bigger in the classic “I’m too smart to get caught” way.

> surely a satellite does what this does but better? China has no shortage of high quality spy satellites.

Maybe not. Satellites are highly predictable and things can be tucked neatly away when they’re known to be overhead.

Extrapolating from here, expect 2^52 objects shot down by F22s this time next year.

They probably are and it’s likely a different set of people than those that were laid off.

I’m no expert, but I’m highly skeptical of observational studies like this. The amount of confounding factors is almost limitless. Surely those that take vitamin D supplements are practicing better self care in general and less likely to, for example, be homeless? I didn’t see this accounted for in the paper. This analysis may justify a controlled study, but I otherwise don’t see it as important or interesting.