How do you mean? Like number of votes, or who’s on the ballot?

To add to other replies, it’s also very difficult to find reliable information on the topic at this point since the search space has been so contaminated, and it’s already not default public information, since medical privacy is a thing.

It’s low to the point of hypotheticals, case by case basis ethical calls, and very nearly philosophical thought experiment levels of “but what if…”.

It’s complicated, since the Harris campaign wanted him to have more opportunities to ramble, interrupt and get mad. They were very much counting on him being himself and comparing that to someone who can speak in coherent sentences without getting mad.

Yeah, it’s definitely faster, but I’m not sure it’s going to make too much of a difference for a Minecraft server.

With setting it up being a bit annoying by hand, I’d still rank the router option higher even if it’s a worse VPN. Otherwise you risk ending up in that yak shaving situation where you’re fighting with routing tables and DNS when you wanted a Minecraft server.

Oh for sure. What I meant was “check router for a built in VPN and use it if it has one, otherwise use wireguard because it’s the easiest”.

The specific VPN doesn’t really matter so much. The built-in one would be the easiest, so checking for a solution that took a few clicks is worth it. :)

I would use something like wireguard, or another VPN service you can host yourself if your router supports it natively.

From the looks of it Minecraft servers seem to have dogshit authentication, so using some form of private network setup is going to be your best move.

Eeeh, I still think diving into the weeds of the technical is the wrong way to approach it. Their argument is that training isn’t copyright violation, not that sufficient training dilutes the violation.

Even if trained only on one source, it’s quite unlikely that it would generate copyright infringing output. It would be vastly less intelligible, likely to the point of overtly garbled words and sentences lacking much in the way of grammar.

If what they’re doing is technically an infringement or how it works is entirely aside from a discussion on if it should be infringement or permitted.

Basing your argument around how the model or training system works doesn’t seem like the best way to frame your point to me. It invites a lot of mucking about in the details of how the systems do or don’t work, how humans learn, and what “learning” and “knowledge” actually are.

I’m a human as far as I know, and it’s trivial for me to regurgitate my training data. I regularly say things that are either directly references to things I’ve heard, or accidentally copy them, sometimes with errors.
Would you argue that I’m just a statistical collage of the things I’ve experienced, seen or read? My brain has as many copies of my training data in it as the AI model, namely zero, but “Captain Picard of the USS Enterprise sat down for a rousing game of chess with his friend Sherlock Holmes, and then Shakespeare came in dressed like Mickey mouse and said ‘to be or not to be, that is the question, for tis nobler in the heart’ or something”. Direct copies of someone else’s work, as well as multiple copyright infringements.
I’m also shit at drawing with perspective. It comes across like a drunk toddler trying their hand at cubism.

Arguing about how the model works or the deficiencies of it to justify treating it differently just invites fixing those issues and repeating the same conversation later. What if we make one that does work how humans do in your opinion? Or it properly actually extracts the information in a way that isn’t just statistically inferred patterns, whatever the distinction there is? Does that suddenly make it different?

You don’t need to get bogged down in the muck of the technical to say that even if you conceed every technical point, we can still say that a non-sentient machine learning system can be held to different standards with regards to copyright law than a sentient person. A person gets to buy a book, read it, and then carry around that information in their head and use it however they want. Not-A-Person does not get to read a book and hold that information without consent of the author.
Arguing why it’s bad for society for machines to mechanise the production of works inspired by others is more to the point.

Computers think the same way boats swim. Arguing about the difference between hands and propellers misses the point that you don’t want a shrimp boat in your swimming pool. I don’t care why they’re different, or that it technically did or didn’t violate the “free swim” policy, I care that it ruins the whole thing for the people it exists for in the first place.

I think all the AI stuff is cool, fun and interesting. I also think that letting it train on everything regardless of the creators wishes has too much opportunity to make everything garbage. Same for letting it produce content that isn’t labeled or cited.
If they can find a way to do and use the cool stuff without making things worse, they should focus on that.

It’s the one that got raised to the supreme court and resulted in the recent immunity ruling.

He appealed the indictment, and after the ruling they tweaked things to comply, and reindicted and now it’s moving to further arguments about if and how the immunity ruling applies to the new indictment.

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that “downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training” should be treated differently from “downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder”, but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it’s a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can’t copy it and share the copy with others.

An object will always follow the shortest path between two points in spacetime.

When it’s sitting alone in the universe, the shortest path is to move through time from A to B.

When other things are present to also curve spacetime the shortest path can entail accelerating in space and slowing in time (from the viewpoint of us, the omniscient massless observer floating nearby pointedly not having any casual interactions).

You are entirely correct. That being said mentioning that you know how to pull an espresso shot under the skills section not gonna hurt, speaking as a fellow developer who does later stage interviews. :)

"I, like so many Americans, worked in a fast food service job. Unlike so many Americans I was able to pursue a career in the field my degree was in, which is an opportunity not given to far too many of our younger citizens. While pursuing those opportunities I tried to focus my resume on the achievements most relevant to the jobs I was applying for. Only after working in law and politics for years did I see that a dozen things needing your immediate attention with a constant time sensitive to-do list was a bit more relevant than those hiring managers would have been able to see. " Then some chatter about not expecting her time working there to come up as an attack, since resume writing and a job not aligned with your aspirational career are pretty normal occurrences, and not knowing that is kinda weird.

I don’t think it’s too hard to politely say that McDonald’s was not the career she was aiming for. It’s basically an acknowledgement that her parents weren’t rich and hiring managers get picky about resumes. Which is honestly a relatable narrative to a lot of people.

So that’s what third party cookies are. What this does is make it so that when you go to example.com and you get a Google cookie, that cookie is only associated with example.com, and your random.org Google cookie will be specific to that site.

A site will be able to use Google to track how you use their site, which is a fine and valid thing, but they or Google don’t get to see how you use a different site. (Google doesn’t actually share specifics, but they can see stuff like “behavior on one site led to sale on the other”)

I wouldn’t say there’s no such thing as a labor shortage, we just don’t really have one now and haven’t for a while. It’s like saying there’s no such thing as a food shortage because in periods of high demand you can always just pay exponentially more money and get it.

If the rate at which labor costs are rising far outstrips the rate at which demand is growing across an industry, not just a business, that’s a sign that the supply of workers is lagging behind the demand growth. Usually seen when there’s a time lag between when demand can start to rise and people from other sectors can move over, like in medical fields or fields with high technical requirements.

It’s still not the workers responsibility to take lower wages to keep a business afloat, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been times when it’s been legitimately infeasible to fill a position.
Businesses and in some cases governments just need to be forward thinking and give incentive to start training for the career before demand starts to outstrip supply.
Smart places with nurse shortages will do stuff like pay for your training in exchange for a set number of years working for them at a market wage.

Okay? Everyone seems fine until they don’t seem fine. That’s not unique to billionaires or particularly insightful.

No one’s canonizing anyone here. Saying there’s a difference between “one of the most popular musicians ever” having a lot of money and “exploitative businessman notable for particularly exploitative working situations” who has two orders of magnitude more isn’t some preening hero worship.

So, two things: I never said people should be billionaires, I said there’s a difference between her and Bezos. You can’t pretend that a $12 album, or Spotify streaming costs are the same as making people pee in jugs for minimum wage. One of them is actually doing things that people like in exchange for money, and people are saying “yes, I would like to spend my disposable income on this luxury good” often enough that she has more wealth than she can ever spend. Extracting wealth isn’t the same as exploitation.

Second, if you exclude the value of her music catalog, she’s not a billionaire. If she sold every piece of real property she owned, and gave away every last penny, he net worth would still be in excess of $500M on account of that. It doesn’t seem quite fair to say that someone is terrible because the things they made are worth more than an arbitrary line of “a few million”. Saying that someone is hoarding by just owning something they made that people say is worth a lot of money is judging someone for something largely out of their control.

None of this has anything to do with someone being “left leaning” in any case. Left leaning isn’t some short hand for ethical purity of being a member of the proletariat or even the working class. Saying that someone who publicly and materially supports progressive causes is “left leaning” seems pretty fair and reasonable.

I don’t particularly care about swift being some bastion of goodness. I also don’t actually care if someone has a billion dollars. I do care if they exploited people to get it. I care if they exploited people to get less than a billion. So lumping people together by the number without focusing on the conduct misses the point.

I’d argue there’s a pretty big difference between someone like Bezos and someone like swift. Specifically, it’s almost impossible to make a billion dollar business without exploiting people, and Bezos definitely exploited the hell out of people.

In contrast, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that Swift made her money by exploiting people. Of the ethical ways to make money, I would think selling albums that you wrote and performed, and tickets to concerts that you’re performing would rank pretty highly.
Additionally, a significant portion of her wealth is the valuation of her music catalog being extremely high on account of being a very popular musician.

I’m not saying she’s the most left person in the world or anything, but not aggressively exploiting people, giving a lot of money to charities, and actively championing progressive causes definitely classifies someone as “left leaning” in my book.

I think we should welcome any and all territories to become states or leave as they desire, but I also think that staying a territory should remain an option.

Given how lack of representation tends to kneecap funding allocation for things like infrastructure I think they would be unwise to eschew statehood, but I know that, specifically in Puerto Rico, there are groups that against statehood but also against going their own way.
Forcing statehood feels wrong, but so does cutting people off from what support they do get from us, to say nothing of them being US citizens.

I do think we should extend full citizenship to anyone from the territories though. Just because it’s not a state doesn’t mean it’s not the US.

There’s no defined process. The constitution just specifies that the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction except where Congress defines exceptions.

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

Since Congress also has authority to actually create and organize the lower courts, they can do almost whatever they please.
The only thing that can’t do is diminish or expand the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.

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

So they can’t put a different court in charge of cases involving two states disagreeing over ownership of a river or it’s water, or ambassadors and such.

So if Congress wanted it to be a single use court nominated, appointed and dissolved for one special case they could. Or they could say it just stops at the federal appeals court, the state court or wherever they want.

Personally, I think a single use court established for special high profile cases with a large potential for conflict of interest would be best. There’s some trickiness that would be involved, since Congress can’t actually appoint judges, only the executive can. So if the case involved the current sitting executive (in my opinion only in their personal capacity, as cases involving the office of the president lack the personal liability that makes for a conflict of interest), then they would still need to be the one to make the appointment. Might be able to sidestep it by having the house select already appointed judges without the conflict to hear the case, but it’s very close to appointment with extra steps.

In any case, other than the caveat that’s never happened, it would be so much more clearly unbiased.