You really should’ve included that it was a UK article though.
You really should’ve included that it was a UK article though.
Google fired a co-inventor of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timnit_Gebru
Following her departure, Google held a forum to discuss experiences with racism at the company, and employees reported to NBC News that half of it was spent discrediting Gebru, which they took as the company making an example of her for speaking out. The forum was followed up with a group psychotherapy session for Google’s Black employees with a licensed therapist, which the employees said was dismissive
It’s a real fucking laugh. It seems Google’s go to response to discrimination is to hire psychs to calm it’s employees. Real cyberpunk corpo shit. “Let’s fix your thinking.”
I’m actually really excited about the smuggling opportunities such a high tariff presents. It’s a real job creator. It’s been a long time since we’ve had major smuggling operations on the great lakes. Will be a big boom for Chicago too, since that’s the point where the smuggled goods get put on trains. Maybe even get the outfit back together.
The problem is, unlike homeopathy, this drug was ineffective for what it was approved for while actually causing side effects. At least the water doesn’t do anything.
Fucking finally.
In many parts of the states they do because their insurance won’t cover them working on those bikes.
Stingy on letting you make your own vape but happy to let you stuff your lip with snus. Typical Sweden.
Most will not repair an ebikes outside of the brand they sell. I’d ask the shop first.
Can’t buy nicotine from the wholesalers anymore to do that in the US. Feds made it illegal.
You pretty much should only buy one from a shop that has a physical location near you and can do repairs. Like everybody around me sells Trek, so if I ever got one, it’d be a Trek with a Bosch motor. Bike shops will not repair ebikes they don’t sell, even though they’ll repair regular bikes. And neither Trek nor Bosch are going anywhere.
What he’s saying is not beyond what Congress has previously laid down though. First sale doctrine should let you do whatever you want, but they actually banned renting phonographs because they thought people were recording them on tape. We’re lucky they didn’t outlaw movie rentals too back in the day. Whole copyright regime needs to die in a fire.
Does your tamogatchi encourage you to commit suicide so you can join it and demand it be the only important thing in your life while sexting you? These are things that if the adult human programmer did, they would be liable both criminally and civilly. Just being AI doesn’t give it a free pass.
Holy fuck, that model straight up tried to explain that it was a model but was later taken over by a human operator and that’s who you’re talking to. And it’s good at that. If the text generation wasn’t so fast, it’d be convincing.
So are you saying yes or no that changing the medium from a book to a movie, which completely alters how the work is consumed, is fair use transformative or not? Because it would be very informative to how far off the copyright test that the supreme court has handed down you are.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for changes in media (photograph to sculpture) with alterations and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith for a more recent case where an upper body back and white photograph was cropped to only included a head, transformed to silk screen, and colored by hand if you want a clear idea here as to whether minor cropping and figure redrawing for engraving in a different medium is considered transformative(it is not).
So if I produce a movie based on a book without a license, I would be ok in your mind right?
Changing medium is not transformative if you’re explicitly copying the subject matter of the original.
Edit: one thing that is funny is that there’s a note in the picture of the article that they can’t use a photo of the back of the watch for some watch review site because they don’t have the rights from the AP. In that case, however, they’re wrong because a picture of the back of the watch to make a point that the watch is similar to the original photograph is, hilariously, transformative. It, in conjunction with the article, has a completely different meaning than the original image and is fair use. If you used the image just to talk about the event or about Trump though, that would not be fair use because you’re just using the image’s composition in its entirety.
Which was settled out of court with a sharing of rights to the AP. And that image was more transformative than this. Cropping the subject of a photograph and engraving it on the back of a watch just conveys the subject matter of the photograph. It’s a loser in court.
aren’t delivering on the promised economic activity
There doesn’t exist a company that gives a flying turd fuck about a government’s revenue. Particularly not if they took tax breaks to reduce that revenue in the first place.
How are they making them? Just fuel reprocessing? You can make them pretty cheap as a side effect at scale of you want to. US can’t though.