AnyOldName3 @ AnyOldName3 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

367

Joined

2 yr. ago

The legalese in the US (which might as well be everywhere as you need to have compatible copyright with the US to have a trade deal with the US, and your country is in trouble if it doesn't have a trade deal with the US) is basically that:

• If you buy a physical copy, you've become the owner of that one copy of the IP contained within. As the owner of that copy, you can do stuff with it like read it, display it, destroy it, or sell it on to someone else thanks to the First Sale Doctrine (but you can't do other things like copying it, unless it's a DVD as there's a specific exemption for the copy your DVD has to make to RAM in order to decode the DVD). There's nothing the copyright holder of the original can do to stop you exercising these rights.
• If you buy a digital 'copy', you've not bought a copy, you've bought a licence to use one of the publisher's copies that they've given you permission to have on your device(s). They'll also have given you permission to do things like read it if it's an ebook or play it if it's a video game, but as it's their copy, not yours, you don't automatically get rights to do anything they've not explicitly permitted you to, and it's not in their interests to permit you to sell it on unless they think you'll pay enough more for a resaleable copy that it covers a potential future lost sale.

I'm sure plenty of publishers would love for the second set of rules to apply to things like books, and from a quick googling, it seems like occasionally academic textbooks have included a licence agreement instead of you actually owning the physical book, but I imagine that most publishers are concerned about bad PR from attempting this with a hit novel and also don't want to be accused of fraud for having their not-a-book-just-a-licence on the shelf next to regular books and thereby tricking consumers into thinking they were buying a regular book. EA attempted to double-dip over a decade ago with Battlefield 3, which included a copy of the game (with regular First Sale Doctrine rights) and a licence key for the online pass (which wasn't transferrable) and got bad press because of it. Newer PC games often come as a key in a box with no disk or a disk that only runs a web installer, so you've not got a copy of the game to claim you've bought and obviously only have a licence, and this seems to have caused less upset. This wouldn't work with a book, though, as you have to fill in the pages at the printing factory, and can't magically do it only after the user's got it home.

It's not that clear-cut as cis women with abnormally high testosterone levels are overrepresented in top level sports, to the point where competitions that tried to define the men's and women's groups based on testosterone levels end up with cis people on the wrong side of the line. Also, hrt for trans people is usually stronger than the natural hormone levels of a cis person of the same gender as it's meant to change their body rather than just maintain it, so the attributes that are more dependent on hormones typically overshoot.

Again, you're reading things into my comment that I specifically avoided saying. If perfect, good and mediocre can't exist, then obviously what I said isn't applicable, and you shouldn't be applying it in that context. It's just like you wouldn't reply to a post about it being necessary to outlaw the slavery of elves by saying elves are fictional and the author is demonstrating that they've not considered this.

This segues nicely into my original point - if you try applying adages to situations they're unsuitable for, dumb things will happen.

I didn't, otherwise I'd have said bad was always better, which would be silly. It's pretty reasonable to assume that most of the time, at least one of the perfect, good or mediocre solutions would be actually achievable, so settling for a just barely tolerable one would be unwise if it was going to block one of the better solutions happening later.

Anyway, my main point is that people have a tendency to bring up the perfect being the enemy of the good when the thing people were objecting to wasn't even good, and a better solution would be perfectly feasible.

The perfect, good, mediocre, and just barely tolerable are all enemies. Sometimes bad is better as it doesn't erode the motivation to solve the problem and means you're more likely to end up with a good solution later. Often, when people accuse others of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, the option was neither perfect nor good, just mediocre or barely tolerable. The exception is when one solution can go on to evolve into a better one, but it can still be better to wait until it does before deploying it.

I'm not convinced this is exactly applicable to the story in the OP, though. The compromise would have eroded the motivation to vote for the original legislation in that election, but probably made it more likely that it could have happened in the next one, and made the consequences of putting it off that long slightly less bad.

If things are done according to the spec, the logo's engraved/embossed on one side and not the other, so you can learn to feel that and get it right first time even in the dark.

Sounds like you've got some Dells with USB ports, and some Dells with off-spec not-USB ports.

My point is mainly that the people who are victims of engineered propaganda aren't going to change their minds if they see a demonstration. If it's possible at all, it takes a lot of friends and family members who they trust more than their news sources to spend a lot of time and effort to gradually deprogram them. Demonstrations only help when there are people who've heard next to nothing about either side of an issue, but would care if they were given some information (not the case with climate change as for all intents and purposes, everyone knows it's real and a serious problem, or has been convinced it's imaginary/actually a good thing/isn't caused by humans), or when there are enough demonstrators to make elected representatives increase their estimate of the number of voters who they need to appease (which needs to be tens or hundreds of millions of people at a single demo - it's very much a partisan issue around the world, so politicians on the vaguely-more-climate-change-addressing side know the people at a demo won't vote for the other guy until the demo's so big that it makes a third party seem like a risk).

Sorry about the hundred-and-forty-one-word sentence.

Persuading the general public to take climate change seriously and oppose the ones causing it is absolutely an important task.

Do you really think there's anyone out there who isn't aware climate change is real and a big problem who could be persuaded that it is? As far as I know, it's universally accepted, except by people who're convinced it's a hoax made up by communists so they can take their guns and make their children chop their genitals off, and there's not enough of a middle group that they could be persuaded in large enough numbers to swing an election.

It's not like it was a couple of decades ago - people are already aware and positions are entrenched. No one's going to look at a sign and suddenly take things seriously.

I said it was more nuanced than you said, which is pretty different to saying it's not like you said. There are big similarities to a human who's read lots of books, but the equivalent human is pirating all their media while being rich enough to pay for it, and sometimes passing off other people's writing as their own. Neither of those things are allowed when humans do them.

There are kinds of analytics that are incompatible with the GPL, as you can't restrict what users do with GPL software, and that includes asking children not to submit analytics containing information you're not allowed to know about children under COPPA. The only options are to hope your software is only used by adults, or not implement any kinds of analytics that collect the relevant kinds of personal information.

It's a little more nuanced as AI models keep spitting out verbatim training data when people figure out the right queries. E.g. the other day they banned you from asking chat GPT to repeat the same word forever as it'd do that for a while, then just spew out something it had been trained on. If someone reads thousands of articles on a subject, then writes the exact contents of one of them, that's definitely plagiarism.

There's also the issue that when a human reads a lot, they have to pay for a lot of books and view a lot of ads and pay taxes that fund a library system buying books, too. The human extracts value from what they've read and gives something to its author. Megacorporations training AI models are only extracting the value and aren't paying for the privilege.

Shared components work brilliantly in a fantasy world where nothing uses new features of a library or depends on bug fixes in new versions of a library, and no library ever has releases with regressions or updates that change the API. That's not the case, though, so often there'll exist no single version of a dependency that makes all the software on your machine actually compile and be minimally buggy. If you're lucky, downstream packagers will make different packages for different versions of things they know cause this kind of problem so they can be installed side by side, or maintain a collection of patches to create a version that makes everything work even though no actual release would, but sometimes they do things like remove version range checks from CMake so things build, but don't even end up running.

It says few opposite of that, i.e. to try the webapp in Microsoft Edge or Chrome, or use the desktop app.

You can theoretically make a Bethesda-Game-Studios-style game with no Bethesda IP if you do it with OpenMW. Come to the light side, our website has no tracking cookies.

No one knows what they were called, so they're just Roman Dodecahedron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron

Scale replicas can be used to knit gloves. Life size ones are way too big to make gloves for humans.

You can use a replica to knit gloves, and that's where the theory originated, but real ones are too big to make gloves for humans.

To paraphrase one of the comments from the last time this was posted, being mean it's wilfully making the lives of those around you worse, and being cringe is negligently making the lives of those around you worse. One you start being cringe on purpose, it's just a high-effort way to be mean.

Epic donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Godot when Unity was being dumb this summer, so either they think an open-source project is on the brink of making their competitor unprofitable and collapse, and think enough of the studios jumping ship will come to Unreal to cover that sum, or they're concerned that someone will start enforcing antitrust laws and want something to point at to say they're not a monopoly.