gonna find some merry men and get a band going!

nose hair trimmer attachment works well around the ears I’ve found (but it’s loud!)

cold cuts? Have you seen the price of a bag of chips? Ridiculous. I don’t need to spend 5 bucks to hate myself later after I’ve eaten too many.

$30 to buy an old mechanical pencil on ebay you remember having in highschool? No problemo.

DOJ wants to get in on some of that hot euro DMA action

hypothetically cool, and very hypothetically legal

that’s a no on the cruciform for me, dawg. Yeesh. I’ll take everything else from there though, Poulsen, hawking drive, farcasters (maybe without the yoke of the AI techno core though), etc.

Absurdity indeed!

Like a kid with a restriction. 1 minute to comply or an hour to figure out how to technically comply but get around it.

It’s stupid but the article says why:

In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

I can’t believe I ever trusted consumer reports after I read up on how they purposely distorted their Suzuki samurai testing. The CR own record video shows they were determined to roll it.

I think the photocopying thing models fairly well with user licenses for software. Without commenting on whether that’s right in the grand scheme of things, I can see that as analogous. Most folks accept that they need individual user licenses for software right? I get that photocopying can’t be controlled the same way software can but the case was in the 90s? I mean these things aren’t about whether the provider of the article/software faces increased marginal cost for additional copies/users but that the user/company is getting more use than they paid for. License agreements. Seems like a problem with the terms of licenses and laws rather than how they were judged as following them or not. Their use didn’t seem to be transformative and the for profit nature of their use sort of overruled the “research” fair use.

I also think the mp3.com thing sucks, but again, the way the law is, that’s a reasonable/logical outcome. Same thing that will kill someone offering ebooks to people who show a proof of purchase.

I don’t know the solution to the situation with NYT/open AI. It’s a pretty bad look to be able to spit out an article nearly verbatim. We do need copyright reform, but I think that’s at the feet of the legislators, not judges. I only need to see the recent Alabama IVF court ruling to be reminded of the danger of more… interpretative rulings.

I’m with you. Ads are annoying but I sort of wish there was (maybe just more around here?) acknowledgement of that’s just how the service gets paid for. I don’t adblock anything. If I can’t stand the ads I don’t use it. I just ignore them. Maybe I’m old and grew up with broadcast tv. I’d rather be subjected to internet ads than have to pay (real currency) at every site I go to. Folks can Adblock all they want but I don’t see how that’s any better than corpo short term quarterly earning thinking vs long term wide range impacts consideration.

Come on, the same bread? That’s crazy. How can that work?

For your used things for sure, the seller being reputable and the items being less common works well. Common items (like that knock off Switch dock above) that can be faked are tough because even if you buy product X from seller A, all product Xs can be in the same bin at the warehouse and Amazon just grabs one and ships. if Seller B is pushing a hard-to-distinguish knock off that Amazon believes is product X, then one might end up with that one and think seller A is to blame. That sort of mistake is definitely Amazon’s fault in my view. You can end up with knock off stuff when buying from the official brand’s store on Amazon for crying out loud.

So you’re talking about placing app windows everywhere? Then you’re limited to placing apple’s available apps for the device everywhere around you aren’t you? Which doesn’t sound like what you want. I’m taking your 3 monitors comment to mean you’re not running 3 monitors worth of mobile apps (because that would be wild if you were!). The 360 degree desktop setup here is going to be more like 360 degrees of ipad apps seems like. Maybe a windows remote desktop sort of app with multiple instances/windows all around you? Multiple safari instances all connected to some sort of web based remote desktop? I too want “spatial computing” to be more platform agnostic and want to be able to just paste applications or desktops on blank walls or floating in space.

The stuff I’ve seen is saying it can only do one extra display from a mac. Is there another way? The high resolution capabilities also suggest one full quality display would max out wireless bandwidth.

Cool. Thanks. I can see it now. No, not really, just the pieces over time I’ve read on what wins fair use protections when challenged often talk about the interpretations involved and that profit making was generally seen as detracting from gaining fair use protections when the extent of the transformative nature was in question.

This mentions it, but of course it isn’t data on what has been granted protections vs. denials of protection. Harvard counsel primer on copyright and fair use

Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are made in connection with content that is sold, ad-supported, or profit-making. When the use of a work is commercial, the user must show a greater degree of transformation (see below) in order to establish that it is fair.

I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

from your second link. I don’t often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you’re making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

“Oh, my God, that’s disgusting! Software that makes naked pics online? Where? Where did they post those?”