sebastiennight

Cue the usual "EU is killing innovation because of all of those pesky tech and privacy regulations" thread where non-EU citizens and bots try to convince you that all EU consumers are clamoring to get access to this treasure trove of new features they're being "denied" access to.

What I get from your two excerpts is that prediction engines, which provide liquidity to a truth-finding market by offering an incentive for inside knowledge to be revealed, are a totally fine and accepted use case I guess?

As a reminder we were talking about Kalshi. I have no idea why you're making this connection with "gambling"!

The announced rules[0] are interesting, in that they claim that sensitive chats (like the ones you pointed out) will not have ads shown next to them.

But - wait for it - memories and past chat history are used for targeting, so you're not going to get your Kalshi ad inside of your "how do I pay back my debt" chat, but maybe the next morning, in your "random cooking question" chat.

[0] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/20001047-ads-in-chatgpt#...

Ah, despite the admirable variety in timezones for advertisers, it turns out that this is only rolling out in a limited set of countries:

    Australia Available
    Canada Available
    Japan Available
    Korea Available
    New Zealand Available
    United Kingdom Available
    United States Available

This is maybe not extremely on-topic, but when creating an account on their platform, their "Time zone" field is sorted in alphabetical order of CITY NAMES which are listed AFTER the timezone name and are not capitals, which is absolutely wild to me.

If the same engineers worked on this that also worked on the ad deliveries, we're about to get either the best deal per click of the century, or the worst!

    Atlantic Standard Time - St Vincent
    Central Standard Time - Swift Current
    Central Standard Time - Tegucigalpa
    Atlantic Time - Thule
    Pacific Time - Tijuana
    Eastern Time - Toronto
    Atlantic Standard Time - Tortola
    Pacific Time - Vancouver
    Whitehorse Time - Whitehorse
    Central Time - Winnipeg
    Alaska Time - Yakutat

Soooo many companies in the French Yellow Pages with names that would translate to "AAA Plumbers", "A, A & Associates Locksmith Company"

For those who (like me) missed the essential key word in the OP's title:

This ruling is about copyright, and seems mostly unrelated to recent conversations about escaping censorship and surveilance, and the overall final throes of the open web.

It's still pretty important since the lawsuit filed by the Anne Frank Fonds could be caricatured as "if this content is illegal in our country, it should not be on the Internet in other countries, because our citizens can still circumvent the publisher's geofence and access it" which would have wild consequences if that line of thought was applied.

But, still:

At its core, the case forced Europe's top judges to answer a highly technical question: if a publisher actively tries to block visitors from a specific country, are they still breaking the law if a user sneaks past the digital border using circumvention software?

According to the CJEU, the answer is no.

Could be conceived to have a tenuous link to the current debate on censorship, surveilance, etc.

Is a 'bias' in a piece of writing generally a property of word to word choice and sentence to sentence construction or is it something more nebulous?

You might be fascinated when you read the story of Golden Gate Claude: https://www.anthropic.com/news/golden-gate-claude

I was searching for this exact link to share here, and then DuckDuckGo surfaced your post.

Reading this article a few years ago was extremely influential for me, as I had been feeling awkward for a while about how we (authors and videomakers) have been going from "sharing actionable information and advice" to feeding the platforms so we can get crumbs from their monetization efforts.

A single word could be removed from that sentence and it would immediately find widespread agreement

I mean, war, in all its cruelty and tragedy, at the same time it brings the worst from people is also able to bring out the best.

I can see it from here: out of tens of thousands of people, one man takes a stand to save a handful of children from all the pillage, rape and murder.

In an alternate world, this man might have (gasp) tried to run a business instead. Sure, the children and city would still be alive instead of burning to ashes, but who cares?

Look, there's not much positive to say for the ad-driven Internet, but to consider "pixels on screens that you disagree with" to be worse than actual mass killing is maybe a tad hyperbolic here.

Wow, those numbers are quite telling.

If you consider that paying for Spotify premium is basically the equivalent of buying one album per month, and the top 12 artists I might be listening to are getting nowhere near 3,500 streams per month from me, it would be better for the artists if I used free Spotify for discovery (like the radio) and then used the money to purchase those favorite albums/songs (that I could then own).

Great food for thought.

So, let's reinvest those resources into surveillance and war?

I am amazed that this exists and can't figure out if this is just some random person's redirect or an official domain.

Tesla does not, AFAICT, also own the land you live on. They pay you in fiat currency that can be exchanged for other goods sold by any provider.

A better comparison to support your "capitalism = feudalism" argument would actually be the era of company stores and truck wages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen_Tons

Is that a category of things that exist?

So, in your list of 3:

- one is "OpenText The Information Company" which seems perfectly fine. It's not descriptive of a category of "things"

- another is "OpenText Elite" : same comment

- and the last is the original "OpenText" French trademark from 1991, which expired 25 years ago.

It's entirely possible that it went through in '91 because, again, an "open text" isn't something that makes a lot of sense at the time of Minitel and typewriters, but could maybe be rejected today (which is why they now use a figurative trademark)

Try actually defining capitalism in a way that doesn't apply to basically any random society since the dawn of agriculture.

.. feudalism?

Which, AFAIK, lasted much longer, and is just not the same thing?

First of all, can you explain what an "open text" is?

Second, as far as I can find through the French IP office (INPI), OpenText (single word) is trademarked as a figurative trademark (meaning they are basically protecting the image of the logo), not a verbal trademark.[0]

Which is what you typically do when you know that your trademark is too likely to be rejected (as being too descriptive), but you want to give it a semblance of protection.

So, no, I wouldn't assume they have been treated better.

[0] https://data.inpi.fr/search?advancedSearch=%257B%2522checkbo...

Apple is a valid trademark in the "computers" category, but would not be accepted in the "food" category.

Here are the 13 valid trademarks in France containing the word "apple" in the same category as fruit: https://data.inpi.fr/search?advancedSearch=%257B%2522checkbo...

None of them are descriptive of the actual fruit.

"Apples in the Sky" is a valid trademark only because apples in the sky do not exist. If there was a strange meteorobiological event where such fruit started to grow in the clouds, this would no longer be a valid trademark for someone to create, because it would be descriptive of a category of things in the real world.

OpenAI can't register OpenAI because they make ai but it's not open

That's not the reason they can't. They can't register the trademark because it's a descriptive one.

If I try to trademark "hacker forum", an EU trademark officer will reject it not because my website doesn't have hackers on it, but because it's descriptive and prevents others from starting hacker forums.

So

They could call themselves... ClosedAI

is also incorrect, because it's descriptive as well.

Oh, to clarify I was not putting forward the idea of "the audiobook", but rather, having the book read to you as you're reading it (with your own eyes), just because I've heard multiple people mention how it helps them keep their focus on the page.

It's just an experiment in additional stimulation basically.

a bundle of unlabeled nerves connecting it to the outside

As a species, we do need to up our cable management skills. We're likely not getting augmented humans until we get there.

I'm puzzled by this question.

Does the material universe perform any other acts than organizing information?

I feel like you're trying to make me argue a position I'm not defending here.

This plus a text-to-speech/audiobook feature with autoscrolling would probably do a lot for book consumption (I mean I, for one, would sign up for that waitlist)

You and I both, but come on. Do we really want to compare HN readership numbers to TikTok's viewership?

Walk around in the subway someday and count, out of 100 people, how many are reading on their phone vs scrolling. I have not seen a person read an article or book on their phone in ages.

Yes they exist but even Google is making it harder to find content to read by burying text-based pages below AI summaries and video results.

It'll be like playing chess against someone you know is using a specific version of Stockfish: even though it would beat you if you tried to fight the system unaided, you can win by asking your own copy of the AI to go one step further ahead, and it will be accurate precisely because it's playing against itself and reacting to its own moves.

I don't believe this is how chess works, and I don't believe this is how Stockfish works, and I don't believe this is how AI works.

Stockfish isn't winning because it's playing a better sequence of programmed steps, and having access to "the next version of Stockfish" doesn't mean it can "guess the next move" and play against that.

This is a wild argument.

If I use the word "semantic", do you have a concept of what it means?

If so, can you please share which of your senses have shaped the world experience that inform this concept? What have you smelled, tasted, caressed, that informed this concept outside of words?

If I make up the word "polysemantic", do you need to recall a personal experience of polyamory to understand it, or could you possibly use your concept of "poly" and your concept of "semantic" to figure out this new concept?

That said, I find it odd that people assume that reading a book is always higher quality than reading the internet etc. - many books are pretty low quality.

You've received several answers on the "quality" side due to books being harder to create, but I'll cover two more arguments:

1. Nobody's "reading the internet" anymore, especially not on their phones. They're mindlessly scrolling short-form video, either muted or blasting them really loud with no headphones, if my experience of Spanish subway is accurate.

2. Even if all books were just printed directly from random internet pages, and there was zero difference in quality, it would be a huge step-up to go from reading one internet page at a time, to focusing on the same content for 200+ pages in a row. There is huge value in giving ourselves the longer attention span.

My understanding is that both GoDaddy and Namecheap used to do domain front running[0] at the time I was registering my first handful of commercial domains, so I've always avoided even using their search engines.

I wonder if the practice still exists.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting#Domain_name_fro...