Mohamed

This is irrelevant because Meta should not be tried for this the same as a private individual would be.

The case for torrenting being illegal for private individuals is one or both of:

1. Downloading in of itself is stealing.
2. Uploading is giving unauthorized access to someone else who otherwise might have had a harder time finding it. Anything else, such as watching, reading, listening, learning, etc. is not illegal (or does not make sense to make illegal). The exception might be publishing. This is rare for private individuals (e.g. using pirated FL studio to make a commercial song).

For corporations, a lot change. Firstly, a corporation downloading a torrent is necessarily making unauthorized material available for some people of the company. It’s like a group of 20 friends all downloaded and uploaded to each other. Secondly, they used this copyrighted material commercially (like playing pirated music in a public night club). Both should be illegal.

However, all of this is still a distraction. The real issue is using copyrighted materials to train commercial AI. Does Meta require permission from copyright holders to make AI based on their work? The law is grey on this, and desperately needs regulations.

Just my thoughts.

Youre both saying the same thing!

“A russian VPN is blocked” is what you showed. From that, we can infer that probably all Russian ip’s are blocked.

I am definitely interested.

Here’s a nerdy math way.

Assume that some numbers are not interesting. Let n be the smallest non-interesting number. Since n is the smallest number that’s not interesting, it is interesting.

I heard that it is the defenseless arctic that is Canada’s weakpoint, due to ice melting.

Except for 0, 1, 2, 3.

Integers are necessarily irrational because π is transcendental and not an algebraic number.

I just want to rant.

The fact that “the judicial branch is controlled by [insert party]” is a valid and true statement to make, especially right now with the GOP, is such a bastardization of the separation of powers.

Those are all interesting questions that, like you said, generally do not admit clear answers.

For art, maybe there is a related question. Should analysis of an art piece (be it text, music, visual, etc.) also analyze the artist, or, put another way, is understanding the artist important to understanding their art? I, personally, like to say that the artist, in general, usually distracts from the art. But this is in many cases untrue.

Just thinking out loud here.

I disagree with being able to opt out of being quoted, but I agree that one should be able to opt out of having their account visible in the the Quote Post. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what a Quote Post is supposed to be? I am thinking of it as a way to share someone else’s post, but also verifying the the quote wasnt just made up.

I would think, in the US, antitrust laws would apply.

Is this different from Intel and x86 architecture? (Genuinely asking)

No criteria. Everyone gets the same exact stipend, whether they have 0$ to their name or 1 billion dollars. Its not necessary for UBI to not have criteria, but it should, because:

1. No criteria means its much cheaper, theoretetically, to administer it.
2. There’s no weird “subsidy” issues. For instance, if only jobless get UBI, then UBI might incentivize people to not get work.
3. It may feel weird to give billionaires the same stipend, but it doesnt really matter. In the US, for instance, less than 1% make more than 1 million dollars a year (or was it less than 1% have less assets than 1 million?). That means, stopping paymwnts for those people would reduce the cost by no more than 1%, theoretically. Of course, it could be targetted towards another bracket, say 50000$. Im not sure, but i suspect that it would still be cheaper to give it to everyone, assuming the removal of checks to greatly reduce the cost of administering it.
4. Further to point 3, giving everyone the same amount could (arguably) make it seem more fair to most people.

There is a fallacy here. You are not making a specific person’s labour a right, but making a type of labour a right. That labour can be provided by many people, each of whom could theoretically have the right to refuse. That labour being a right means that there is some mechanism that ensures a person gets it. E.g., right to an attorney.

Also, many many existing rights require other people’s labours. The right to a fair trial in the US would require a judge, a lawyer, and 12 members of a jury.

Not a lawyer.

From the argument, it seems that the violation of the conditions in itself is not trespassing. Trespassing is staying after the conditions were violated. Since the person was promptly removed, it is very hard to argue that they trespassed.

Why wouldnt it affect Tesla as much?

Elon Musk, not Trump.

I think its in reference to Canadians (British at the time) setting fire to the White House in the, 19th century I think?

Technically, botox is just the toxin of botulinum, which also is a bacterium, not a virus.

Sort of clickbait. Not the most egregious example.

But yes reading that line did make me feel misled.

I agree that that’s useful information. I wonder though, if it is that useful, if Lemmy or the Lemmy app does that automatically?

Plus, even rationally it doesn’t make sense. Even if it is shameful to have a mental disorder, pretending you don’t have it will most likely make it worse (and hence more shameful) than if you accepted it and got treatment.