It’s mostly a nothing-burger right now:

This new Trump administration brief is not a ruling, as the case is being tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the authors of the brief do not have jurisdiction.

The U.S. copyright office somewhat contradicts the brief:

The training process [also] implicates the right of reproduction.

– https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ Part 3, III, B.

Tho, the same documents do mention that “fair use” defenses can apply, but as always they depend on a lot of factors specific to individual acts of possible infringement.

That’s a very “doomer” view of democracy, but you might be right.

The documents I quote are from publications by the U.S. Copyright Office. But, the Berne convention and the WTO ensure that member states copyrights are aligned.

I doubt “allow for AI generated code” has the bipartisan support you think it does; it certainly doesn’t have the popular support. But, ever if it were legal, it should still be unethical (e.g. Amnesty International’s reports of human rights violations in generative AI), and I’d be attempting to avoid it.

I’ve decided to start moving to NetBSD. The copyright status of genAI code is very questionable, and it’s likely any project that integrates it, with be “extinguished” via legal action in the future.

Oh, violence, even lethal violence might be necessary in defense of self or others. But, we must not deny that we are dealing with persons. I’m not even saying don’t dox the guy, I’m saying that don’t forget that you are doxing a person.

The focus should be on rehabilitating the person and remediating any harm they have caused, not on returning harm with harm. Of course, if they are being violent or legitimately threatening violence, defensive violence SHOULD be taken to contain/control/remove the threat.

Violating his privacy might be a good lesson in how “we should balance privacy and safety” as part of his rehabilitation, but we can do that without dehumanization.

Defensive violence is justified only so long as it is defensive.

For example, torturing prisoners is immoral even if the prisoners in question were (and want to be) executioners for the State. They do not pose a legitimate threat of violence when they are (controlled) prisoners.

This is dehumanization. It is the tool of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman_breaks_rifle.jpegxl

–

If you dehumanize persons, you aren’t a leftist or revolutionary or the resistance or an activist. You are a fascist.

I’m going to try to switch to NetBSD. The FreeBSD policy is not settled. The OpenBSD and Linux Kernel policies are permissive.

Yeah, I just heard the results of the vote yesterday (been traveling), so I plan on trying to replace Debian with NetBSD on my laptop as soon as I catch up post-vacation.

I think technically that might have been Lindows.

Face to fist style!

I think it’s Zac from Earth two, where his “Knight’s Concerning Oath” in started with rooster instead of goose.

My new game is a roguevania, souls like, gothic horror version of Metroid. /s

You make it sound simple and absolute. But, our rights are severely curtailed even in the U.S. via the DMCA. If your console, or even the game code on disk, requires an okay from the manufacturer as a “copyright protection” and you bypass that in any way, you have just committed a felony and are considered by the State a valid target for violence.

Of course, simply accepting the lack of physical media doesn’t help make the situation any better.

Having worked on POS software, I can guarantee you we do not have “metadata for products on lock”.

Manufacturers will sometimes reuse the same UPC even though the packaging is fairly different. The UPC doesn’t contain the price, size, or any size – it is just a convenient look up for whatever POS the retailer uses, and for systems targeting independent retailers, that might be maintained mostly manually, though some warehousing associations might provide an importable list.

In large retailers sometimes the smart tags are controlled using a system that doesn’t even deal with UPCs, just images / webpages, shelf locations, and schedules.

Buyer beware, indeed.

It’s not clear that photo has anything to do with the headline. Several others in the thread have found that photo attached to other, similar events.

What’s the cut-off for “nature”? I mean, it’s not like DNA tests grow wild on the PCR plains, and it seems to me that the DNA test was the “tattle tale”.

Ask for Jenny.

No.

That is a separate and still valid point. Even if you are visiting a food bank, you still have all your same allergies, sensitivities, and preferences. The food bank itself will have a better idea of what they need to hand out.

I’m saying that even if the food bank needs 20 cans of cranberry sauce, instead of you buying for $$$ and donating them, it is better for you to donate $$$. The food bank can then buy the cranberry sauce for $$, and also buy some green beans for the leftover $. Your dollars buy more of everything when you give them to the food bank instead of buying the products yourself.

Came here to say this. Everyone I’ve ever talked to that worked at a food pantry has guaranteed me that they can get more food from $$$ than you can donate for the same $$$.

I’m sure that the economics could change, so if you can engage with you local food pantry and confirm their preference, that would be best. But, if you just want to drive-by donate $$$ > food >>> nothing.