She’s almost a billionaire, nothing will stop her from having the money for her bs anymore. Money keeps shitting out more money. That’s not to say that boycotting hp will do nothing, but the impact really is minimal.

Her getting money from it is also not entirely related to seperating the art from the artist, as there are plenty of ways to just not give her money and still interact with the art. I don’t really think the books are all that great (and also have some shit messages in their own right) but it’s still undeniable that they got a lot of kids into reading and are clearly very good at captivating young readers.

They’re technically voluntary but also socially expected. I’m not sure about birthday gifts in particular but Japan is a country where if you go on holiday somewhere you’re expected to bring a gift for each of your coworkers, and people will think worse of you for not doing that. I’d be kind of surprised if omitting birthday gifts for your romantic partner without prior agreement is a real option.

The equivalent would be instead of saying “the only good nazi is a dead nazi” you’re saying “the only good german is a dead german”. Or, alternatively, saying nazi to mean german.

I don’t blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with countries that have done horrific shit to them in the past, that’s normal and fine. Translating that into a blanket hatred for its current population is not (it isn’t in general, but it’s hard to truly blame someone for just not liking people from a country they’re currently at war with by default, it’s kinda the natural reaction and they probably have other shit to deal with)

I mean yea that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest honestly, even outside of the number itself being pretty meaningless in the first place it’s very fuzzy what the actual dates are.

Average. It’s just an average. I haven’t verified whether the number is accurate (and often it’s probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.

The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.

I never even thought it was that deep (idk if in other countries ppl go over it in school or something, I first heard of it online) so I never really understood how people are relating it to any economic system. All it’s saying to me is that one bad actor can be enough to ruin something for everyone - as far as I’m concerned it’s just prisoners’ dilemma in a larger group. So we need some way of enforcing that, if a shared ressource is vulnerable to singular bad actors (which isn’t all of them, e.g. some people abusing welfare doesn’t suddenly skyrocket costs), it won’t be abused.

Edit: just realized I forgot whether tragedy of the commons was about some few fucking up the pasture for everyone, or everyone slightly overusing it. The latter is ofc a bit different, but “ah I can cheat the system a little, I need it after all” isn’t an uncommon sentiment. That one usually just means you need a bit of a buffer, though, because most people won’t grossly abuse something. (And of course, it’s still quite independent of economic systems - regional software pricing for example is ultimately a capitalist thing to sell more, and yet would fall under this as it’s usually possible to get these prices from other regions.)

I’m only complaining about all the people that apparently regularly lost bottle caps. I don’t think that has happened to me ever… Not the end of the world and if it reduces litter I’ll deal with it but I curse these people every time one of the new caps is being annoying to screw back on.

So, english works like language has always worked, and french has lost the plot.

That said, complaining and refusing to use it yourself when people use language in a way that you think makes no sense is also part of that process. Feeling superior because of that is just ridiculous though.

I think there’s a blurry line here where you can easily train an LLM to just regurgitate the source material by overfitting, and at what point is it “transformative enough”? I think there’s little doubt that current flagship models usually are transformative enough, but that doesn’t apply to everything using the same technology - even though this case will be used as precedence for all of that.

There’s also another issue in that while safeguards are generally in place, without them llms would be very capable of quoting entire pages at least of popular books. And jailbreaking llms isn’t exactly unheard of. They also at least used to really like just verbatim repeating news articles on obscure topics.

What I’m mainly getting at is that LLMs can be transformative, but they also can plagiarize. Much like any human could. The question is then, if training LLMs on copyrighted data is allowed, will the company be held accountable when their LLM does plagiarize, the same way a person would be? Or would the better decision be to prohibit training on copyrighted data because actually transforming it meaningfully can not be guaranteed, and copyright holders actually finding these violations is very hard?

Though idk the case details, if the argument was purely focused on using the material to produce the model, rather than including the ultimate step of outputting text to anyone who asks, it was probably doomed to fail from the start and the decision makes perfect sense. And that doesn’t seem too unlikely to have happened because realizing this would require the lawyer making the case to actually understand what training an LLM does.

Similarly, I’m not 100% sure about this but afaik the + got commonly added before the IA, and I really dislike adding anything specific after a generalized “everyone who feels part of it” because doing that delegitimizes that the + actually means everyone. Though it also does suck if people feel excluded otherwise.

I’ve seen queer used to refer to the whole community though, but I think LGBT(+whichever addendums) has just been around for so long it’s most people’s goto, plus “queer” used to be a slur.

In my head it’s just “people not conforming to the majority group for sex or gender related reasons” and then I write whatever my brain decides is the term in that moment. Usually LGBTQ+.

It’s almost like prion disease is rare. If you can get vCJD from eating meat of a cow that had BSE, you can very likely also get it from eating a human that had vCJD. Particularly given that it is proven to be transmissable via blood transfusion. And that cows can get BSE from eating other cows. BSE outbreaks are also pretty much the only instance in which we actually have enough data on cannibalism and the potential of disease spread.

The reason we don’t have many cases is that we don’t eat people and that the diseases that you’re likely to contract from doing so that don’t die from cooking are very rare. Add to that that even cultures that do consume human meat generally only do so to a very limited degree (and often from people that died violently rather than disease or old age), and of course not much has been recorded.

Since prions can occur spontaneously, it is very possible that a culture of frequently consuming human meat indiscriminately could even eventually lead to some new prion disease spreading which happens to transmit via meat consumption at an above average rate.

I agree with you in general but cannibalism is actually bad because prion disease. Not eating other people makes sense for simply health reasons.

I mean I still think if everyone involved consents it should be allowed, but there’s a good reason we don’t like it as a society.

Hmm, as someone relatively deep into lgbtq issues (though particularly trans issues), I’d say the term itself is perhaps a bit misleading. The way I understand it and see it used is that it’s about heterosexuality and also gender norms within that traditional heterosexual relationship (so some people think that even in a homosexual relationship there’s always “a man” (dominant) and “a woman” (submissive)).

In that sense (to directly relate to the post) a dominant woman in a relationship with a submissive man would actually go against heteronormativity a bit.

On second thought I guess I can see the relation though, in the sense that the traditional “man is dominant in a hetero relationship” combined with the fact that by default most men probably mostly top could make someone see “topping is considered dominant” as reinforcing those traditional relationship norms. Still feels very overreactive by the original commenter but eh.

Heteronormative != heterosexual

I fail to see any issue with the post (like fucking everyone associates topping with dom that doesn’t mean it has to be, and the image works), but it’s decidedly a complaint about social norms rather than a group. Even if I think it’s not a valid complaint because wtf does it have to do with heteronormativity.

Yes, but that doesn’t make the comparison to all countries with over 500 000 people meaningful. It’s specifically that part that seems dishonest to me.

Though I suppose it is also possible that the full data has a few states where incarceration rates are more around the global average, which then would actually have a point in including other countries. Those weren’t part of the image posted here though (which was also dropped without context as to why it was posted)

Edit: yknow it occured to me i could click the link and yea, some states are indeed more normal, though still kinda high. That’s really the interesting part far more than the top of the list.

Yes, but that is not how the graph is framed. It’s framed as “look, if we put US states on a graph with other countries, they have such a high incarceration rate that there are almost no countries even on the graph!”

If it was honest and just trying to compare the incarceration rate of US states amongst each other (and the national average) it wouldn’t be titled “[…] in U.S. states and all countries […]”. It’s a clearly manipulative title.

The reason that a graph with this title could maybe make a point if it was absolute numbers is that most U.S. states’ population is less than most countries, so if individual states were still high on such a graph, that would be shocking.

Satire based on Israel’s rhethoric I’m assuming.

They are, and I agree it’s misleading. It’s implying that it’s somehow shocking that the individual states of the county with the highest incarceration rate in the world also have a high incarceration rate. If it was absolute numbers, it would maybe make a point. As it is, it’s stating the extremely obvious and framing it as “look, it’s even worse than you thought”.

If humans are any indicator, they might also be doing things because they think it’s an advantage but actually does nothing.

My prediction is that (barring a heavy left shift in politics, i.e. a linke grüne spd government or similar) it will keep getting more expensive until it becomes useless enough that cancelling it is no longer political suicide.

It’s honestly insane to me that it seemingly wasn’t a huge topic in the election (at least I didn’t hear much about it), millions use it and many more benefit indirectly as it lead to better offers for local transport ticket subscriptions.