linuxftw

Disagree. The US manufacturers doubled down on over priced cars that nobody can afford, that's what the money went towards.

Remember when Hillary won all those coin tosses?

We don't need your skills, your country does.

Well, as it happens these immigration court judges were appointed by previous administrations, and they were intentionally slow walking every case. The Trump admin fired a bunch of those judges earlier this year, was sued, won, and now the cases are actually getting processed.

The people that ICE are rounding up today already have an active removal order, and they are actively fleeing law enforcement (for the most part).

People have also been offered incentives to self-deport. The ones left are actively breaking the law and are more or less fugitives.

Personally, I would prefer to not have federal police forces and we could use state police to deport people, but both sides of the aisle are making a lot of cash building up the police state.

The issue is that past administrations of given them quasi-legal status. You hop the border, claim 'asylum', then you get a court date years away.

So the first step is revoking the fraudulent claims, and processing the cases so they can be deported legally.

You're the one that brought morality into the conversation. If you don't think there's anything unique about what we've experienced in the last few years, I don't know what to tell you.

That's just your opinion. I think copyright is immoral.

We could decide to fund civil rights litigation like medicaid.

If you can solve the problem in a way that doesn't give government and NGO's more power over private industry, nobody will push back. If the solution is invasive government regulation, the answer will always be no. Also, can't involve the tax payers funding any of it.

I'm familiar with the document. We've reached the terminal progress where copyright is useful to society.

Does copyright over knowledge-based works really have any legitimate position in today's society? We're entering a new age of how information is created, used, and distributed.

You would think tech workers in the deep blue states would be leading unionization efforts to kill this kind of stuff before AI finally fires all of us, but no dice.

I'm talking about the voter base, not the crooks in Washington.

I termed it "Sh*t floats" when I was in the Navy.

Only Fox News boomers are against solar power. The rest of the right wing just doesn't want government slush fund handouts to vaporware companies like the Obama administration. If it's cheaper, great. Don't drag CO2 into the argument, just win on price and the right wing will happily adopt it.

The longer people stay, presumably the more they spend. Seems like a good match for a bar.

Like Arcades? Well, that would just open the door to game providers that do provide such software/hardware.

Who cares? Why should kids watch things that are popular?

We can just move on as a society from Disney. It didn't exist in 1900, no reason for it to exist now. It doesn't deserve a permanent place in western culture.

That may be true, but we're talking about core library vulnerabilities that major projects use, not one-off's that nobody else cares about.

These are felony charges, are there no grand juries in AZ. The defense needs to absolutely unseal the grand jury testimony, there could have been nothing but lies told in that room. Not a single shred of evidence the defendant was ever in Arizona.

Fortunately, this stuff will never change because we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves how much foreign labor we should import to keep people too poor to fight these cases in the first place.

At least there's some measure of substance to some of the posts, unlike the blockchain and big-data hype trains of yore.

My point is that some object created by an automated process that serves its purpose should not be offensive. You can absolutely have a preference, but offended? On what grounds is something created by AI inherently offensive? And how can that be uniquely applied to art but not software?

There's nothing inherently offensive about AI generated art. You simply choose to dislike it. Are you offended by screws made by industrial machines instead of hand-carved?

I disagree. The core of gameplay is handled in the code. Art by itself doesn't make a game fun. Think about card games like Poker, Black Jack, Spades, you name it. Nobody plays those games because the cards are a particular art style, they play them because the rules and strategy are fun.

You can have AI create the rules for you, or you can have the AI create the code that implements the rules. It's not different for art. You can have the AI create concepts for your, or you can direct the AI towards a specific vision.

Why does art have some different value compared to code?

I think the number of submissions is fine. It's easy to filter by the type of game you're looking for. If you just want to doom scroll, yeah you're going to have a bad time.

A fraction of what the UK imprisons for wrong think each year.

What are you talking about? 90% of litigation is convincing the judge that existing case law that clearly applies to your case does apply to your case.

This is why hosted agents (muse, dots, grok bot) will succeed. Organizations won't relax their PC security policies, so they'll need a platform where the agent actually has permissions to develop and install software.