HN user
On a side note, I wish Doctorow would stop listing URLs in the middle of his articles, instead of using descriptive text with a URL anchor.
My screen reader always reads them in full ("H T T P S colon slash slash..."), which is very disruptive when listening to an article, especially with 14 interruptions.
I'm using a (Greasemonkey) userscript to automatically redirect
to:
That's not what I said. The concern is not about "answering questions" about original works. That would probably be acceptable at any scale. It is whether the approach foreseeably results in the creation of market substitutes that compete with original works.
This goes back to the original purpose of copyright, which is to serve as an economic incentive for individual creators and artists to make more art, by securing exclusive rights to use their own works commercially for a specified time. The goal is both the creation of more works, but also to protect the economic viability of artists.
This principle is quite universal and can be found in many places, including the US constitution and US (supreme) court decisions, many international jurisdictions, treaties and conventions.
It would hardly make a dent. And if you hired hundreds of savants, the knowledge would still be spread over hundreds of separate minds.
And even if we grant that those savants are also very skilled at creating "market substitutes" based on their training that are capable of competing with the original works, their maximum creative output would only be a relatively small number of new works, because they can only work at human speed.
There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional.
A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.
Wouldn't the proverbial reasonable person jump out of the way of a vehicle that's already nearly on the verge of colliding with them? Pulling out a gun seems to be the less instinctual thing to do in such a situation.
I also wonder if they'll ever find out who screamed "F*ing B*tch" at her in that moment.
He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.
Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.
For the record, I totally agree that you should have this ability.
But they are likely orienting themselves with GDPR and similar laws around the world, under which data exports and portability only include your own data, and specifically exclude that of other "data subjects".
This is one of the few areas where I think that GDPR may be too strict.
I wonder how they'd handle this under the GDPR, which has an explicit "Right to rectification".
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her.
Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-16-gdpr/
Obviously if you change your email address, the old one ceases to be correct, even if it was correct before.
Raffles are meant to increase engagement and participation, and getting conference participants to interact with prize sponsors and remain until the closing remarks. If employers started to demand that any prizes won be considered property of the company instead of the person who won, participants would likely start paying less attention and probably skip raffle activities altogether.
I welcome the initiative. At the same time, there probably needs to be some kind of "freedom of panorama" exception to take and use pictures where someone's likeness just happens to be featured incidentally/in the background, like pictures of tourist attractions, public events, urban photography etc.
Otherwise everyday photography in public spaces would become legally risky or impractical, especially in crowded areas where avoiding all faces is nearly impossible and where the focus clearly isn't on the individuals but the landmark or scene itself.
Seems odd that it's not being sold off. Was it truly that worthless?
It was also a great way to read paywalled articles for free.
"White Power Waffles"? You may want to double-check your examples.
https://www.recipeninja.ai/recipe/r_0a8wYxMgm1zFSw/white-pow...
Airlines have hugely benefited from moving travelers from paper tickets to the use of their phones, where everything is done in the airline's app. Even if a few flights get turned around now and then, that seems trivial compared to the benefits:
- No need to print/distribute physical tickets
- Check-ins via the app reduces the need for ground personnel
- They can push inflight menus, shopping items, promotions etc.
- Flight updates and other notifications can get pushed to your device
- Integration of loyalty systems like airmiles
- They get to track various user behaviors
Couldn't they be classified as non-sequiturs, given that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises?
That's true, but those safeguards can be disabled. ChatGPT on Azure for example, allows Azure account managers to disable filters/safeguards depending on the customer.
Given that this product is apparently used to give people with disabilities a voice, that should definitely qualify. Yes of course they should be able to swear, just like everyone else.
I find it more disturbing that her private, offline conversations are being policed at all.
A guide for your daily "professional" interactions
I like how professional is written in quotes.
Interesting approach. So are we only able to hear those sounds now because the rest of the music was removed, which would ordinarily mask the missing sounds?
To say that the mp3-encoded version is not "what the artist recorded and wanted for us to hear" would imply that we can hear all sounds in the uncompressed recording.
I'm predicting that there will be one next year. If it's that easy to mobilize a crowd, there's a parade just waiting to be organized.
Most NDAs logically only place limits on what the parties will do from the moment of signing, so maybe check the wording and publish the information before signing the NDA?
Aren't puberty blockers primarily meant to prevent children with gender dysphoria from experiencing the physical disadvantages of going through the puberty of the wrong sex? Obviously a study where children are given the puberty blockers won't be able to measure the impact of all the harmful effects that were prevented (neither physical nor mental health-wise).
The way the article is worded, it almost sounds like they were expecting them to work like mood enhancers. I mean, it's somewhat interesting that there were different outcomes in both studies, but it doesn't speak in any way against the use of puberty blockers.
It's not just about the potential effects on the stock market.
Allowing insider trading would also incentivize leaders to make business decisions that primarily serve their personal interests, rather than their company's. They would prioritize decisions that create short-term changes in the company’s stock price, just so they can profit from trading on that information.
That's actually quite clever in a devious way: by giving app developers the control over blocking sideloading, Google essentially sidesteps the requirement to be fully open.
They can now just point to the developers: it's them, not us!
So no copyrights, if it's true?
That is definitely not true for everyone who has had their Google account for years, because back then, location data was an opt-out feature.
I definitely never actively opted in, and Google never disabled the tracking to force previous tacit consenters to opt in to account for the cultural shift from opt-out to opt-in, which probably happened in the early 2010s?
In English even its name may work against its adoption, because of the W.
Can you send me that as a "Pee-Double-You-Dee"?