Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Yes, that’s me, and it’s not blaming. It’s describing the problem. I’m not saying whether these things should be law or regulation or whatever, I’m explaining why these things are being overturned in court.
I’m really baffled by what the point of this argument is. Are you trying to say that things are working as intended?
I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m describing what’s happening. The reason why it’s happening is irrelevant.
We’re saying the same thing. The government is not operating according to how the constitution says it’s supposed to be working.
So you’re saying that it’s the courts that are behaving incorrectly according to their role in the constitution? If so, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making here.
“.glb file specification” gets that as its first hit on Google, too. OP was just being incredibly lazy and ironically was expecting the search engine to figure out what she wanted without telling it explicitly.
Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.
Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.
The speaker clarifies that they are using the terms “parasite” and “cancer” in a precise way to describe generative AI. ● Generative AI is parasitic because it relies on human communication and creativity for training data but simultaneously erodes and destroys those very things. The speaker compares it to a parasite that drains resources from its host without offering any benefits in return. ● Generative AI is cancerous because it spreads rapidly, replacing authentic human content with AI-generated content, and dealing with it will likely be difficult and have unintended consequences. The speaker acknowledges that addressing this problem, much like chemotherapy for cancer, might inadvertently harm “healthy cells” as well.
The speaker chose this title to emphasize their serious concerns about the negative impact of generative AI on human creativity, communication, and the internet. They believe generative AI is harmful because it deceives users by presenting AI-generated content as human-created. The speaker clarifies their word choice to preempt potential criticism and ensure their message is understood.
I just wish they were interesting NPCs.
I’m not making any statements here about what’s “right” or “good”, I’m just saying what is. The US government is operating in ways not intended by the constitution. At least not clearly intended. If you want to interpret that as me taking a position then it would be that they should fix their constitution. Until they do that then their government will be unstable and unpredictable.
So they are well within their rights to pass a law setting up the FCC to promulgate regulations based on the Telecommunications Act.
The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court basically said “if an agency is going to make a regulation it needs to be very specifically based on a law that says they can do that.” So they’re saying that Congress is going to have to pass some actual laws about net neutrality before the FCC can make regulations enforcing it. The fact that agencies have been making those regulations without laws backing them up is the problem here.
Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Congressional votes in favor of an AUMF, as outlined in the War Powers Act.
That happened, sure. I’m saying it shouldn’t have. The US went to war without a declaration of war, which is something that should be made by Congress. By passing generic “the President can bomb whatever he wants to” legislation Congress is shirking a responsibility that’s supposed to be theirs.
If you want to have a government where the President is in charge of deciding when to go to war, go ahead and have one. By setting up a constitution that says that’s how it’s supposed to work. Don’t have a constitution that says “here’s how war is supposed to be declared” and then just go do something else instead of that.
I can see it being difficult to keep up with the law-writing given how much more complicated the world is now than when Congress was first established. To keep things working properly there should really be a whole lot more congressmen, Congress hasn’t been expanded in a long time and representation is starting to get pretty wonky as a result.
When you get right down to it, I think the root of the problem is just that the American system of governance is just too old. It was one of the first big democracies so it was built without any prior experience of what worked well and what didn’t, and the patches it’s had since it was established have been too minor and are too difficult to apply for it to keep up with things. But a large swath of the American public have been indoctrinated that American democracy is the “greatest in the world” and that the US constitution is a sacred document, so major changes are nigh on impossible even if American politics wasn’t in such a dysfunctionally divided state.
All in all, I’m glad not to be in their shoes right now. Though my own country (Canada) is having some political problems of its own these days they feel more resolvable than all this.
The problem is that it isn’t a law, it’s a regulation.
On the one hand, the Republicans are definitely playing politics by attacking the ability of agencies to come up with regulations. But on the other, it really is just another example of how various parts of the US government have been ceding or delegating their responsibilities around willy-nilly in ways that weren’t constitutionally intended. Congress hasn’t made a declaration of war since 1942, despite all the wars the US has entered into since then. The Supreme Court was never even intended to decide the constitutionality of laws, that’s something they declared for themselves and everyone’s just gone along with it since then. The debt ceiling limit is just plain incoherent, Congress allocates money so a budget they pass should automatically override previous legislation (like the debt ceiling limit).
I don’t know what the US should do to resolve all this, but it’s getting to be quite the mess.
You used the wrong word for “two early!” Worse than Nazi!
Joke’s on you, I have a dishwasher machine! Robots do my dishes for me too! It is you who is the dumb one, having to labor manually as you do!
Ah, there we go. Thanks.
Huh. Based on the community this was posted in, I can assume that the answer the video comes to is “yes” and not watch it. But according to Betteridge’s law of headlines the answer is “no.” I need to argue about this without watching it but I don’t know what stance to argue about.
Ah! I’ll use the Orbit plugin to get an AI to summarize the video for me. Hm. The AI-generated summary says the video describes an anecdote about music copyright violations, talks about some ethical considerations about both music and software piracy, and then:
The speaker concludes by acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the importance of considering the perspectives of all parties involved.
So I guess the answer was “Maybe?” How am I supposed to have a pointless Internet argument about “Maybe?”
Bah. Someone attack me for using AI, at least that’s a debate I can sink my teeth into.
If it actually existed, then obviously I would subscribe to whatever theory most accurately described how it worked. That’s science.
If you’re asking which theory I would predict is most likely, knowing only that time travel was possible as a starting point, then there are only two that I’m aware of that are logically consistent. Either:
Single fixed timeline, whereby if you go back in time then whatever you do there was already a part of history from the start. You won’t be able to “change” anything because you were always there. This is the approach described by the Novikov self-consistency principle.
Multiple worlds, in which if you go back in time you just end up following a different “branch” of history forward from there.
Any of the models that let you “change your own history” are logically inconsistent and therefore utterly impossible. They just can’t exist, like a square triangle or 1=2. They may be fine for entertaining movie plots but don’t take them seriously.
Yeah, I think Disney would be perfectly happy paying that sort of fee to keep those IPs locked away. The very last thing they’d want is to let something go, and then some time later discover that someone else has turned it into a valuable product. Not only are they losing out on that profit but now there’s a competitor out there. Better to just sit on those IPs forever.
If you instead start jacking the price up year after year until it costs billions to keep an IP copyrighted, why not simply declare it public domain at that point and be done with it? I think a hard cutoff makes a lot more sense. And that way nobody needs to go rummaging around through registries to see if they can use any little thing, they just need to know when it was first published.
The original duration of copyright was a flat 14 years, with a single additional 14 year extension if the copyright holder applied for it. So 28 years in total. It turns out that after 28 years the vast, vast majority of copyrighted works have already earned essentially all of the money that they will ever earn. Most of them go out of print forever before that point. It’s only a rare few works that end up becoming “classics” and spawning “franchises” that last beyond that point. We’re sacrificing the utility of the vast bulk of what should be in the public domain for the sake of making those occasional lucky hits into cash cows. There’s a great paper by Rufus Pollock, Forever Minus a Day? Calculating Optimal Copyright Term, wherein he uses rigorous economic analysis to calculate that the optimal duration of copyright for generating the maximum value for society is 15 years with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years. So remarkably the original law hit the right duration almost exactly through sheer happenstance.
In an earlier paper he also determined that the optimal duration of copyright actually decreases as it becomes easier to distribute work, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively.
It probably wouldn’t be much of a “civil war”, pretty much everyone would just say “that’s nice Charles” and then go pass a law explicitly removing that ability.