This.

Regardless of the up and downsides respectively, it should be the penis owner himself to decide.

DRM creates artificial scarcity

But does it?

That being said, the cause of the profit-boostig effect is the walled garden effect, not artificial scarcity.

Whether amazon sells DRM-free ebooks on their Kindles or not isn’t the point. The point is the ease of use.

Most people will just stick with Amazon - even if they can migrate “legally”. People don’t like change. Of course, some always will.

If it gets expensive, the share of those jump-shippers increases - would you rather pay 25% less for your books if you switch to a competitors. Migrating your (hypothetical) DRM-free library is a bit of a process, but something most anyone could do.

^ This is what they’re aftaid of. People being able to jump ship. Corporate not being in complete control. Customers not being fully dependant on their overlord.

This is why DRM is a thing. This is why EULAs state “you own a single, non-transferrable, by us voidable at any time, free (for now) licence to use this software”. This is why most privacy policies ask way too many things.

It’s pure greed. Why should I, as a bookseller, make it possible for you to hypothetically switch to someone else when I can do the exact opposite? Why should I not download all your contacts, just in case I need them? Why should I not use your IP/region for “tailored” pricing?

Scarcity has nothing to do with it. There are ways of obtaining books online. DRM-free or not. Free or not. If consumers were so efficient in their consuming, Amazon’s book business would either sell books for pennies to today’s price in dollars, or they’d shut it down for their more profitable ventures.

What they need as sick and greedy bastards is control.

Wearing a pink blouse and skirt, complete with rainbow-colored nails.

One is too little.

Our Glorious Leader needs at least three.

Ideally, he’d retroactively get one for each year after his International Debut in Cinema (Home Alone 2)!

Yes.

Me and my buddies. And a lot of wilderness.

The best way to send those thugs home is for the crowd to act like a bunch of drill instructors screaming at them how fat and worthless they are.

It all depends on your security model.

If you want to stuff some cash, you probably want that easily accessible.

If you want to hide something you’ll need in a few years, you’ll probably stuff it under a pile of junk.

If you want to make your family heirlooms safe until you reveal their location on your deathbed, planting a tree or building a house on top of them is a valid ultra-long-term option.

some sort of tracking of him was done that the feds don’t want people to know about

That “tracking” is all the work they did to find a suitable fake perp. If they had any real evidence and Luigi did do it, it would’ve been admitted almost immediately. They have very little to lose.

it was something that may be ruled unconstitutional and risk the case against him

And besides, if that were true and Luigi truly did it, don’t you think the current SCOTUS would use this great stroke of luck as a way of undoing some “dangerous” precedent?

Well…

CK did want guns readily accessible. CK did say gun violence deaths were a sacrifice he was willing to make.

Given the fact that Luigi might be pinned for the crime, it’s equaly likely that CK truly has had a larger share of responsibility in the killing at hand.

No. It’s more as if you had to pay for the pony to get it, and then:

If you want to ride the pony, that’s $2. The saddle has a coin slot to pay. It also has spikes poking both you and the pony if you don’t pay. Any time you get off, the spikes relock, requiring another payment to unlock.

This is the exact same situation minus the animal cruelty part and with money being swapped with time.

Until it gets a proper Guest mode like Chrome (which is basically a private window without the shame of using one), the only thing they did is add a cute little interface to an ancient feature.

Soon you cannot believe anything you read online.

That’s a bit too blanket of a statement.

There are, always were, and always will be reputable sources. Online or in print. Writteb or not.

What AI will do is increase the amount of slop disproportionately. What it won’t do is suddenly make the real, actual, reputable sources magically disappear. Finding may become harder, but people will find a way - as they always do. New search engines, curated indexes of sites. Maybe even something wholly novel.

.gov domains will be as reputable as the administration makes them - with or without AI.

Wikipedia, so widely hated in academia, is proven to be at least as factual as Encyclopedia Britannica. It may be harder for it to deal with spam than it was before, but it mostly won’t be phased.

Your local TV station will spout the same disinformation (or not) - with or without AI.

Using AI (or not) is a management-level decision. What use of AI is or isn’t allowed is as well.

AI, while undenkably a gamechanger, isn’t as big a gamechanger as it’s often sold as, and the parallels between the AI and the dot-com bubble are staggering, so bear with me for a bit:

Was dot-com (the advent of the corporate worldwide Internet) a gamechanger? Yes.

Did it hurt the publishing industry? Yes.

But is the publishing industry dead? No.

Swap “AI” for dot-com and “credible content” for the publishing industry and you have your boring, but realistic answer.

Books still exist. They may not be as popular, but they’re still a thing. CDs and vinyl as well. Not ubiquitous, but definitely chugging along just fine. Why should “credible content” die, when the disruption AI causes to the intellectual supply chain is so much smaller than suddenly needing a single computer and an Internet line instead of an entire large-scale printing setup?

Let them.

Either the celebrities go down with them…

Or the genocide state goes down without them.

I think they all know which choice hides good PR.

Just like the citizens of the United States do not support the actions of the United States government

They do. Period.

If they didn’t, they’d complain. Louder and louder with each passing day, until the cause went away.

However, that’s not what’s happening.

Minding your own business means you support the current power structures and those in them. Silent support is still - support.

Italy is doing good on the complaining front: they disrupt the economy. Not enough so anything changes in essence, but just enough so some lines go down and alarm bells start ringing.

Most people, unfortunately, eat up the “antisemitic” and “Everyone I don’t like is Khamas” arguments. A good chunk not because they’re stupid amd can’t differentiate, but because it gives them an easy way of coping with what they’re seeing: truly bad stuff happening. Bad stuff they like.

YES.

The poor them must feel so opressed!

Luckily, them being sane humans with empathy, they’ll realise how trans people’ve felt for ages!

(unfortunately /s.)

Yeah, I assumed. No way 86 pages are needed for a proof of ‘1+1=2’.

That being said, it’d be nice for there to actually be a “proof” of 1+1=2, made as concise and simple as possible, while retaining all the precision required of such proof, including a complete set of axioms.

This, obviously isn’t is, nor does it try to. It’s not the “1+1=2” book, ot’s the theoretical fpindations of matheđatics book. Nothing wrong with that.

What’s missing here os the definition that we’re working in base 10. While it won’t be a proof, Fibbonaci has his nice little Liber Abbaci where he explains arabic numerals. A system of axioms for base 10, a definition of addition and your succession function would suffice. Probably what the originals were going for, but I can’t imagine how that would take 86 pages. Reading it’s been on my todo list, but I doubt I’ll manage 86 pages of modern math designed to be harder to read than egyptian hieroglyphs.

I know a few artists and get their complaints against AI, but I feel they’ve been way too overblown.

I look at AI as what it is - a new technology. Everthing was one at some point.

For example - cameras. Do you think artists who learned painting were happy when cameras started displacing them?

Of course there was outrage. It’s natural to protect your interests. However, technology has to be allowed to progress and people’s rights have to be respected. Developments in technology such as photography or AI are a disruption of the existing legal framework, and the two sides’ rights (those of the users and if those displaced) must be balanced.

However, unlike photography, there’s a clear legal basis and precedent analogous to AI art - in most places recieving copyrighted material without permission isn’t punishable while distributing it to others is.

An AI model is in essence a retrieval system in the sense of the US DMCA. Most other places have substantially similar laws in spirit, and most places draw the distinction between distribution and “fair” uses of infinging material. A good rule of thumb is that selling access is a big no-no, distributing is a big risk, and merely using a much smaller one. All technically illegal (as are memes).

To adress the mems side of the question: Memes aren’t a large portion of the original work. Often times they’re screenshots of video material, so the “portion taken from the original” is minute. Some meme formats, however, are digital art pieces in and of themselves. (Note the word format - the “background” of the meme, for example the “If I did one pushup” comic)

But even with that consideration, a meme doesn’t bring harm to the original - it’s basically free advertising. And as the memes are usually low quality abd not monetized, it can be passed off as fair use or free speech in some jurisdictions, while others merely turn a blind eye. And why shouldn’t they?

As I said, memes have a multitude of points going against them being copyright infringement. They’re low-effort, short-form media, usually with a short “lifetime” (most memes don’t get reposted for years). Most often they’re a screengrab of a video (so a ‘negligible portion of the original’) and almost never bring harm to the original, but only serve as free advertising. Again, usually. This means most meme formats’ involuntary creators have no reason to go after memes. You could probably get a court to strike a meme, but probably on defamation grounds - and even then, the meme will most likely die (not the format!) beforehand, so such suits are usually dismissed as moot.

Compare this to an AI model (not an AI “artpiece”): It’s usually trained on the entire work, and they’re proven to be able to recreate the work in large part - you just need to be lucky enough with the seeds and prompts. This means the original is “in there somewhere”, and parts of it can be yanked out. Remeber, even non-identical copying (so takig too much inspiration or in academic speak, “plagiarism”) is copyright infringement.

And to top it all off, all the big AI models have a paid tier, meaning they profit off the work.

If you were to compare memes to individual AI “artworks”, then it is the same thing as memes. Except if the generation is a near-verbatim reproduction, but even then, the guilt lies with the one who knowingly commited infringement by choosing what to put into the model’s training data, and not on some unlucky soul who happened to step on a landmine and generated the work.