basilikum

I find you're perspective quite baffling. It is interesting in that you like the standardization and lack of certain web design crimes and I should not be overly negative to the OP showing their work^1. But man, I truly cannot understand how anyone can see that slop design and feel anything positive. It makes me want to instinctively close the tab immediately as soon as I see it.

[1] It's mostly not their work and just generated though that's not as relevant. But still I think we should be polite when someone shows something that has the chance of having some significant amount of human effort in it.

It completely fails if, for example, an author spends 4 years unpaid writing their latest book, and after the first copy is sold anybody is free to duplicate the words from that book without giving the author a penny for that work. One of the specific reasons for copyright is to ensure that the author is granted exclusivity over sale of the works, such that they can earn a fair wage to compensate for the 4 years of their life without any income at all.

I completely agree with you. Authors should have a monopoly over the distribution of their work "for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work".

How us it unfair that if that author lives another 50 years and people are happy paying for the book for the next 50 years, the author should continue receiving money for it, rather than just some unrelated party whose only skill is being able to scan and reprint the book for basically the cost of the paper?

You are framing this in an emotional, artificially limited scenario under the category of fairness. The reality is that copyright has been extended multiple times for works that had already been written for the benefit of huge corporations that lobbied for it. The revenue of an accomplished author for their family is a feel good pretense for this. They did not play any role in the political decision process for this. The authors of these works created them without the expectancy of lifelong copyright protection and even copyright protection for their descendants. That did not stop them from creating these works and had they expected lifelong copyright I am certain we now would not have significantly more works from this time frame.

You are portraying only the author in this and postulating copyright like a natural right that is only fair. It is not. Copyright is censorship. It is not fair to censor the derivative works of others or to demand payment from people for obtaining copies of decades old works; to use your category of the subjective feeling of fairness. Much more importantly than the feeling of it being fair: It is unjust. Copyright is censorship. It restricts access to information and culture. We initially imposed this censorship as a societal contract between the public and an author to incentivize the creation of more works. We restrict people from sharing a work and even from creating their own derivative creative work of it, because only through this censorship the work being censored even came to be. Therefore the result of that censorship is more expression, art and information, not less. This is why the censorship of copyright is justifiable. Any copyright term beyond this is unjust.

You speak of copying as an unskilled, dishonorable act. Copying is what our civilization including all the great works you want to monopolize are built on. All significant works are derivative works to some degree. We now live in a world where through the monopolization of creative works under few huge media conglomerates these conglomerates effectively own large parts of our culture. The lengthy copyright terms give these corporations exclusive controls over many aspects of our cultural heritage. We still make adaptions to ancient mythology to this day, but the cultural canon of our society has greatly expanded since them. Mythology and fairy tales only grew to what they are because there was no copyright on them. What we are doing today to our modern cultural heritage is like the ancient Greeks putting copyright on mythologies. Had they done that our literature would be much poorer today. Would we limit copyright terms our literature would be much richer today by allowing people to write their own derivative works to the cultural goods of our age.

If anything these films are a great example of why copyright terms should be long, because those films are still culturally relevant today, 60-80 years after they're made, and that people are still willing to pay for them over newer films shows that the creators and their families still deserve to continue to get royalties from them.

The people who get most of the money from these movies are the shareholders of huge media conglomerates, which is the only reason why these works still have copyright. Authors and their families are purely a pretense for this.

The point of people deserving a monopoly over aspects of culture long after they created a work and deserving to censor the works of others who do not pay royalties to their monopoly – this is what copyright means – is weird. It sounds good as long as you read it as a feel good story without thinking about it, but it is ultimately moot. No, they do not. The argument is bizarre. We do not grant this privilege to anyone else. Everyone else gets paid for their work when they do it. They can even invest the money like everyone else. When you've hit it big with a creative work you are set for life. But when I build a house for you, I get paid once. I cannot get back to you 20 years later and demand payment once again because you are still living in it and benefiting from my work. It would be absurd. Obviously in creative works there is usually uncertainty. Most works are not created in exchange to a previously agreed commission by one party, but are created as an advance investment and then offered to the general public. We have to grant copyright to these works for a limited time so the author has the chance of making money from their work. There is no reason to extent this copyright beyond this limited time period and to grant authors such a special privilege. On the contrary there is all the reason not to do this as copyright is ultimately censorship and must be limited to the utmost minimal necessity.

Disney, which is that their older works frequently took stories that were specifically out of copyright, and then they vigourously pursued copyright on the films they made from those stories.

That is perfectly fine. No one in their right mind would argue against that. The evil of disney is not creating derivative works of works in the public domain, but after the fact lobbying to retroactively extend copyright forever so that no work will ever fall into the public domain again; so that no one will be able to do the same as them – creating derivatives to decades old works that ought to be in the public domain; so that they can effectively own culture.

For instance, if copyright was just 20 years after something was created, a painting might have been created 20 years ago but never made public until later in their life, and so copyright has expired before they've ever tried to sell it.

Copyright should last ten years, at the very maximum 15 years, after publication. This is an entirely solved problem. The solution is just not implemented because in reality copyright is not about incentivizing authors at all.

Maybe there was only public interest in their work later on in their career and suddenly their early work was now considered valuable.

Sucks for them. No reason to grant indefinite copyright.

Or if it's 20 years from the date something was made available to the public, then you could reset the clock by creating a slightly different work

No, you couldn't. Why would a derivative work prolong the copyright term of the original? The derivative work would have copyright on its own if it had significant additional creative input (so not just spelling corrections). The original is entirely unaffected by this. Derivative works are already a settled concept in copyright. Nothing about them is new or special.

What you are describing is indiscriminate mass surveillance. There is absolutely nothing stopping Apple or whoever maintains that listof hashes from putting things other than child abuse on there, like dissident memes for example.

It also requires devices to run this spyware without a way to disable it. The natural consequence of this is to ban everything but government approved, restricted OSes and to outlaw devices capable of running anything but these. Mandatory CSAM scanning is part of the war on general computing and privacy.

To clarify, I am aware you are objectively describing the legal situation. I am not making a legal, but an ethical argument. We seem to be agreeing.

There is even a Wikipedia article about the legality. It's quite complicated in a lot of places because people really like to ban it but it very much is free speech or protected artistic expression in countries that have these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...

To be clear fictional pornography about real children has to be distinguished from fictional characters. Even when the depiction is purely fictional. Sexualizing real children is unacceptable.

Fictional erotica portraying fictional children is not CSAM. There is no child abuse taking place as there is no child in the first place.

Conflating the two is 1. wrong as a matter of fact and ethics and 2. a great injustice to the victims of child abuse.

This is exactly what I wrote about in the second part of my comment. People see themselves as the victim of CSAM or proclaimed CSAM through being witness to it. In fictional works there is no child who could be the victim showing very clearly what these people are really about. They are not primarily concerned about children being exploited but they do not like the existence of such material as them deem it offensive to themselves.

CSAM is a very real crime; including cases where real children are not physically harmed but get sexualized through the composition of the material. It is a crime because it violates children, not because it is offensive to societal norms.

I personally know of 1 who took a leak across from a playground at 2am walking home from the bars and was put on the sex offender registry because it was within 500'.

You might want to look up if that's actually true. It might be. It might also be a lie to hide the real reason why they are registered.

To play devil's advocate: child abuse is usually a crime without direct evidence. CSAM is child abuse but the perpetrator films their crime as evidence. Everyone else who obtains and keeps this material also holds evidence against themselves as the possession of it is the crime.

Now for real: People often do not care a lot about child abuse. It does not affect them as it happens in private where they do not see it. CSAM however does affect them as it makes the abuse visible and shows something deemed reprehensible. In a lot of ways people see themselves being witness (even indirect by purely hearing about it) to CSAM as the victim rather than the children who are harmed in the making and by redistribution.

My cynical opinion is that it is a lot more about social norms and feelings arising from the violation of these norms rather than the harm done through the violation of children.

That Jack Dorsey?

There is no such thing as "the national government" when it comes to computer systems. They hacked one system of one government division.

If their Opsec wasn't crap it is extremely difficult to try to identify them after the fact.

offline backups are not made after every single transaction.

All you need is an append only tape or even a printer.

Interestingly in the Bangladesh Central Bank hack they used a printer to print out any transactions, but the intruders disabled it or it was just malfunctioning because it's a printer.

But I doubt the Romanians actually had such a system.

Or just have Opsec.

623 Euro, which is a nice midrange price [for a phone].

How did we get here?

Is this really how a lot of people understand the term autism spectrum? Obviously there are manY people who do not know pretty much anything about autism, but is this really a common misunderstanding.

Healthcare varies widely in Europe. It's not one country. But the "on private health care" part is they key. It's really not that different in lots of parts of Europe with the difference that people who do not have that still have access to the healthcare system without going bankrupt, albeit slower.

Modern disks are not the same as PS2 and NES disks. The difference between owning something and not owning it is not whether it's on a dedicated physical medium. The PS2 disks are irrelevant to Sony's decision to discontinue disks for future consoles.

Disks with games you own have already been discontinued. Arguing about the format (disk vs downloads) is a distraction.

This isn't about these systems. The context here is Sony announcing the end of physical disks for future games/consoles.

This has nothing to do with physical vs "digital" (CDs are digital anyway), but with owning. CDs can have DRM and only work with keys from whitelisted systems that might even have to authenticate online or trigger a time bomb and wipe their keys and downloads can be in a DRM free format that can be copied, archived and played on any capable device forever.

If LLMs were humans I would find that human absolutely insufferable. It is very much about the language.

HSTS with preload enabled end up in a big list at Google to speed up the initial connection from browser to site.

HSTS preload is not for speed. It's to protect against SSL stripping on first connection. Modern browsers already try port 443 first or in parallel with 80.

URL: https://basilikum.monster

Open to email: yes

It's SEO spam for their product.

K4R311

How long does it take to boot?

At this point, just inject a thread into that GUI process and send the command

Can you or someone else expand on that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Crystals

You can steal neither of those. You can copy them and in some specific cases copying bits or letters or some other human creative work might be unethical, in a lot more cases it can be illegal, but it is not theft.

Patents function only to limit the actions of what living beings can and cannot do.

Like all other laws. I don't see how this is relevant.

It's a place where the farmer very specifically reproduced them, not just the conditions.

Sorry to be so blunt, but the farmer is neither fucking peaches nor giving birth to them. Living beings self reproduce. Humans sometimes put a lot of work into creating the perfect conditions for that to happen, but that is irrelevant to the point. When I smash rocks together to create a tool I and only I created that. When I plant seeds for them to grow into fruits which contain many more seeds I did not create the new seeds on my own. That does not make my work any less valuable but it does change the nature of the action. The first scenario should be allowed to be restricted to the inventor for a limited time. The second scenario should not be restricted. The act of reproduction of life should never be seen as anyone's property.

you'd probably be a bit annoyed if others just stole the product

For sure, no one is arguing for stealing fruits here. However while you can steal physical fruits, you cannot steal genes.

then why should it be available for everyone?

Why should it not be? You seem to view the right to breed a variety of some species that you created as some natural right and default. It is not. What you are arguing for here is the state going after people for creating the environment for plants to reproduce, which is a natural right.