sethrin

I'm not seeing any related documents that explain what the goals and rationale for the project are.

Qu'ils habitent en leur Teslas

Note that the various platforms have changed their UI to discourage tips, and my impression is that they are doing their best to communicate the reason for the price increase, and it's not possible to determine whether the increased fees are actually in proportion to the increased cost (if any).

I can't speak to how any of these companies think about this ordinance, but I do think they have an incentive to ensure that this ordinance fails, and a great deal of influence on its success.

It's a long stretch of the imagination to suggest that this will ever have macroscopically observable effects, and relativity doesn't generally admit any kind of "gravity drive" without exotic matter.

No, you see accounts of that happening, and setting aside problems with veracity, you don't necessarily have a good handle on frequency.

Yes, people would simply invent things, or a similar process with the same effect. The idea of history as some sort of neutral record of events is itself historically novel, and most of our sources around the Norman Conquest has a very pronounced slant one way or the other. Chroniclers generally were also using a great deal of secondhand information (at best). In the given instance, Orderic Vitalis was cloistered and more or less explicitly writing propaganda for William.

It's not persuasive, it's impossible. Knitting was unknown to the Romans.

At the time it was seen as extremely dubious; the criminal charges are the least surprising outcome.

That's not correct. In the UK there's the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and in Canada the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and Australia this also seems to be the general case, but I didn't immediately find a statutory authority.

> https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-f...

There is no right to secede or otherwise unilaterally decide what the remedy for this claim is, but the idea that a tort was committed and the authorities were liable seems like the least crazy idea here.

For anyone else reading this, feel free to ignore this person's post. If there's a good case to be made that aspartame is harmful, this isn't it. Few of these studies are germane to typical human exposure, and typical exposure levels aren't strongly correlated with large increases in risk.

For the author, try reading some of these papers. Also don't bother linking to press releases or newspaper articles, you're just wasting other people's time. You probably want to skip the animal studies too. Go for no more than three links, preferably meta-studies -- at least if your intention is to be taken for something other than a crank.

Alsup is semi-retired since 2021.

One thing to note from the USPTO doc is that it describes the reproduction of substantial parts of the source corpus as an error condition. This bears on part of the Author's Guild complaint, that ChatGPT was at one point able to reproduce chunks of copyrighted text. OpenAI would like to persuade USPTO that this would be an erroneous output of ChatGPT. This seems like a persuasive position, but not necessarily dispositive.

The economic impact discussion to my reading is actually intended to establish standing, by showing a concrete and particularized harm to the plaintiffs. Generally, a well-formed complaint is trying to establish that there exists a 'case or controversy' which the court is able to redress, not necessarily to answer all questions of law, and generally not to make prophylactic arguments about your opponents' hypothetical defenses. The USPTO document is being used as an example of OpenAI admitting copyright infringement, which they seem to have been happy to do -- one hopes that they fully anticipated this lawsuit.

Neither of us is purporting to discuss the original intended use. Your quote:

> It would be like saying, I'm not consuming this media for enjoyment, but to learn how to create media, therefore it's ok that I'm not compensating the creators for that media.

> That would not fly.

The copyright statute explicitly contradicts you, by requiring courts to consider the purpose and character of the infringing use. Perhaps you meant to make some other argument?

Your post would be more substantial if it were informed by the arguments against the points you raise by the linked article. In general, looking only at the text of a law is insufficient as a basis for legal analysis.

> It cites OpenAI's justification (which is how I found it) and tries to refute it.

I actually didn't see any refutation in either complaint. I'm not sure that I would have expected to, given that fair use is an affirmative defense, but I would certainly be interested in an attempt to address it.

The linked paper describes the conditions for fair use as given in 17 U.S.C. § 107, of which the first seven words are "the purpose and character of the use".

Law is a field where context is essential: to analyze a particular set of facts you need not solely the text of the law, but the full historical use and interpretation of that text in regards to other sets of facts. Speculation based on what one imagines the law to be is rarely useful in understanding law or legal arguments.

Related publications:

Design, fabrication and test of the iridium catalysed electrolysis (ICE) thrusters (2023) https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.884942

Experimentally Demonstrating the Feasibility of Water as a Multimode Electric-Chemical Propellant (2022) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362036633_Experimen...

Those aren't "political prisoners", they're merely normal criminals, but there's so many of them that the justice system is having a hard time dealing with it. There are only so many federal judges and prosecutors.

Why do you need external validation of what you know? Is a test going to demonstrate that you know something? Is it going to demonstrate that you know what you need to know, or what the person who designed the test thinks you need to know? And all that aside, what use is the test score? Is that something you'd put on a resume?

"Because the USSR is doing it" was an equally bad reason.

Apparently there's a lot of embedded Ruby in Japan

https://engineering.appfolio.com/appfolio-engineering/2017/5...

I'd say don't give anyone bad ideas, but we are too late:

https://github.com/oraoto/pib

The phrase associated with Apollo was, "waste anything but time." Achieving arbitrarily high levels of quality takes time, for pretty much any process. Those F1 engines were mostly handmade, which you can see among other places in the imperfect machining of this F1 injector plate[0]. The attitude at NASA towards risk was not "avoid it at all costs": what they were doing was inherently risky. NASA's goal is to manage risk.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20230522164734im_/https://cdn.ge...

We tend to be introverted (for reasons), and if you can code you're more likely to have the socioeconomic status to be able to transition, or rather the same conditions are correlated with both abilities. It's also a non-public-facing industry in general, which makes it less likely we'll be discriminated against in hiring or employment. So part of it is predisposition and part of it is simply greater visibility.

The author uses the pronouns "she/her".

I use ruby-lsp and solargraph and copilot. Personally I'm rarely tempted to get very meta at work, but side projects are another thing entirely. I think one project has six DSLs?

You seem confused. It's pretty common in English, particularly when discussing simple plurality voting, to use "majority" to indicate "plurality" instead of absolute majority. It would also be possible to claim that a vote is antidemocratic absent an arbitrarily chosen supermajority, but that's not being advanced here. I decline further semantic arguments as being non-substantive, as well as puerile. Your inventions about my character are nakedly intended to be offensive; probably you shouldn't post like that here.

Yes, I'm sure you have wonderful reasons for wanting to legislate your morality. No, that person offered zero in the way of concrete suggestions, and it staggers belief to see how you would even think that. The immediate subject at hand is not government funded education but family structures, and I was pretty explicit about the solution; since you seem not to have the correct context I suggest re-reading this discussion more carefully.

Because you're lying about the claim being made. It is correct to say that Trump was elected by a minority of the total votes cast. It would be incorrect to say that he was elected by "some vanishingly small minority", but you're the only one saying that. Being elected by a minority is sufficient to sustain the claim that an institution is antidemocratic, particularly in an otherwise simple-plurality voting system. I'm sorry if there's some reality there you don't like.