Khanzarate @ Khanzarate @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

420

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah but if someone wants to write their own sequel to a first book, before the series is done, that's fine. Still not canon, just fanfic that can make a profit, and that sounds fine to me.

It's fine. after the storms grow large and merge into one super-storm, and the land is scoured to bare rock, the crabs will have their renaissance.

Then the spren will emerge.

Isn't it? I got sad writing it.

My alternative was to point out that some sharks are black and there are cops on the beaches but I felt this line does a better job. Slightly more relevant.

Because a lot of states no longer have power from the people, they've gerrymandered and made it hard to vote enough that you need a supermajority to get the will of the people into law.

the federal government has a lot of similar issues, but it also innately has some more checks. For instance, its districts are the states, and you cannot arbitrarily redraw state borders like how states can redraw voting districts.

But, what if someone sees an undesirable, having a good time, and simply wants to exercise their god-given right to harass them without fear of consequences?

How do you stand your ground at them without this most basic thing?

Almost think they wanted to let it die, purposefully not letting in any moderators.

I mean while it's bound to have a lot of that sentiment, considering why most of us are here, that's not a rule and this is pretty much the only community on Lemmy where the post is relevant.

As far as I know, there isn't one. SKSE is required because Skyrim didn't provide the right scripting functionality to touch that at all, and SKSE overrides the exe to hack it in itself.

Xbox doesn't let you override the executable, so has no access to that part.

No. Ignoring the religious part, which is huge, they also sent that money to an organization that isn't in the US. A US judge cannot enforce a ruling on a non-citizen.

It's pretty comparable to how you're SOL if you send money to a "Nigerian Prince".

Duh, but also the app is literally titled "Threads, an Instagram app". Using the proper name and not the singular word names Instagram.

It's stupid, but it's Zuckerberg's stupid. Also there's a ton of people helping run the business, it's just an ad business, not a social media one.

I'm more in the camp of we half-assed it. Strong state? Cool, let's downgrade the federal government to "economic block" instead of "republic". Strong federal? Great, why are we letting 50 mini-governments screw over our citizens?

Having both lets bad players point at others and declare it's their fault.

I do think strong federal government is gonna be inevitable, because they won't give back power they have, but I'm not cheering it on.

The constitution was written like the federal government was more the EU than a single country. States have always been able to take away rights that aren't specifically in the constitution, like education.

It's a flaw, because states are not separate countries anymore, and it's a flaw that's being exploited hard, but preventing republicans from using that flaw would require branches of government that weren't corrupt.

I don't disagree with most of what you said but there's a real basic thing with the rail strike he could've done.

If the government has the power to force a deal, he could've just given the workers the week off they asked for, forcing the companies to acquiesce instead of the people.

While you may need to replace the whole strand, and can't just swap in individual bulbs, the strand itself has the resistors needed to let the LEDs function, instead of the individual bulbs.

Not really. First, standard equipment is limited by cost, not technology. Nothing stopping some power user from using liquid nitrogen to cool a desktop, it's just costly. Superconductor tech, though, would be bleeding edge, it wouldn't cost any less for a long time. Supercomputing, on the other hand, has had access to more esoteric cooling systems, and can already use them. They also have had access to the extreme cold superconductors that have already existed.

The real issue there is the CPU makes the heat, but this tech isn't a transistor. We can't replace the silicon chips with superconducting ones, at least not in a form dense enough to be a CPU. There's lots of small improvements around the CPU we can make, but those aren't at the "wow, this will revolutionize technology" level. They're cool but it's the other stuff that's gonna get the focus.

While true, that'd only be for a superconducting CPU. I doubt this material can both superconduct and act as a transistor, and even if it can, I highly doubt you could pack in anywhere near the amount we have in standard CPUs. So while we might replace a standard power supply with a superconducting one, and reduce heat that way, I don't see any direct computing boosts from this. We could superconduct everything around a CPU, have superconducting wires, but the heat from a CPU is generated in the silicon.

It'll be pretty nice to have 100% efficient PSUs, though. Definitely some gains there, just not the same revolutionary ones seen elsewhere.

Better batteries, yeah. That's down the line. We will also generate heat during the actual use of any devices. But, less.

It also could become the most efficient commercial batteries, but I expect the cost will be prohibitive. Sending electricity always has a loss, but it doesn't through a superconductor, so these will have a lot of uses at power generation sites, both reducing heat and losslessly storing it (until it enters the traditional grid).

It won't directly transfer to faster tech or anything like that, but it helping quantum computing could do so indirectly.

Definitely it's more of a facilitating research kinda thing. You can't play with superconductors in a lab in a cost efficient way, but this could let you.

Also maglevs and MRI's directly use superconductors currently, so that's a direct use, lower cost MRI's and incredibly fast trains.

Superconductors in general have no electrical resistance. That's basically electricity's friction.

Superconducting materials make the strongest electromagnets, they have big applications in quantum stuff (which I don't properly understand to try explaining), and they're used in something called a Tokamak, a specific kind of fusion reactor. They're useful in anything where electrical resistance is bad in general. When electricity is resisted, we lose some and get heat, so a superconducting wire would lose none and never heat up as a result of resistance.

Superconductors traditionally have to be super freaking cold. A lot of these applications can only be done with liquid nitrogen or even colder things, keeping them superconducting. You can do some things with pressure to help out with that, but the point is it's not easy to keep a material superconducting. This effort translates to costs, often prohibitive ones, as you need to actively keep these materials from collecting any heat.

If this research pans out, though, this kind of superconductor will just work at standard temperature and pressure. These could go into standard circuits, they can sit around without bleeding money on upkeep, they're very cool.

People are comparing them to transistors in part because before transistors we had vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes do the same thing as a transistor, but they're effectively a lightbulb. They burn out, they produce heat, and they didn't miniaturize. Transistors were magic at the time because we could do so much more with them than vacuum tubes, and for superconducting metals, this is the same.

NASA has just acknowledged that "streaming service" is the new tv channel and has decided to do the PBS route again.

I agree, I hesitated at the + but I can totally get behind this.

According to the American bar association, a parody is "conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image". It explains that parody looks like the original, but can't be a direct copy. Trademark is the more relevant here because the only debate is the logos and similar branding,not the adobe suite itself, because this is being built starting with open-source software by "geeks", as per the kickstarter.

The same article goes on to point out that it's important that the parody is actually a comment on the thing being infringed on. Hyundai lost a parody argument when an ad used Louis Vuitton markings on a ball to comment on luxury products in general, with the court making it clear that if they had been commenting on Louis Vuitton specifically, it would have counted.

This product's logo, as far as we have seen it so far, certainly infringes, as parody has to, but the work is definitely intended to critique Adobe'a business practices.

Next, the article goes into trademark dilution, namely, that "abode" and the logos used would cause brand confusion. The image I saw might make me do a double-take, but there's clearly a little house in there, and that's not adobe. If the logo was always with "Abode", it's my opinion that that's pretty distinctive, considering the logo Adobe has is an "A". Precisely, as the article states, an association, but not a false claim that adobe is behind the Abode software. "The more famous the mark being parodied, the higher [Adobe's] burden becomes to establish blurring."

Trademark infringement is a seperate from blurring, but essentially the same argument applies. As long as a "reasonably prudent consumer" isn't fooled, it's not trademark infringement.

Copyright is similar in nature to trademark law here, but also doesn't assume commercial gain, which means it's more weighted towards Abode here, as a non-profit.

Now, yes, a good lawyer can make a case trying to remove any of these defenses, and Adobe will certainly try. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. But I do think there's more than enough here for this to be an actual fight in court. These facts vs Adobe's money.