Womble @ Womble @lemmy.world

Posts

17

Comments

725

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yup, No one being able to produce a copy of something you created for a decade after it was first published - entirely reasonable.

People profiting off of artificial exclusivity 60 years after the author died 50 years after publishing a work - not reasonable.

For real, they haven't been able to get air superiority against Ukraine despite having many more and more modern planes. They haven't even been able to get naval superiority against Ukraine who don't have a navy.

Even discounting the US its absurd to think Russia threatens European NATO with its larger population, vastly bigger economy and much better air and sea forces.

I dont have one, but I'm pretty sure you can drop to a desktop that you can do whatever you want with the files on the system just like any other linux distro.

But the value per person they get from " use your data to tailor ads for those around you" a tiny amount and the amount they get from selling your eyeball space directly to paying customers is (comparatively) vast, I could easily see it being 1000x greater or even more. Youtube is going to war on adblockers for a reason.

Kinda, but its not black and white. For a start steam has a much longer track record of nearly 20 years not doing this, I've heard of them de-listing games and not allowing them to be sold any more but never of revoking games that have been sold. Secondly there are many games on steam that stream cant just revoke, games that use no DRM or DRM that isnt integrated into steamworks they cant just delete if you back it up.

But that being said there is the possibility of something like this happening on steam, which is why I'm glad there is still an active game piracy scene even if I dont use it any more.

Could you point to the judgement on playing copied games was illegal in the UK? I can only find articles about specifically DS copy cartridges which are very obviously intended to make/use unlicensed copies of games to distribute.

Even so, that again hinges on right to distribute, not right to make a copy for personal use. If a game is made freely available on the web for you to play it is not illegal to download that game to play offline or study it.

Every time you load a webpage you are making a local copy of it for your own use, if it is on the open web you are implicitly given permission to make a copy of it for your own use. You are not given permission to then distribute those copies which is where LLMs may get into trouble, but making a copy for the purpose of training is not a breach of copyright as far as I can understand or have heard.

A) Hydro is a huge help for storage and dispatchable renewable power, Portugal has it but not everywhere does

B) 6 days is a long way off the entire winter when solar power is minimal

Sunak's family is worth literal billions, he is the boot not the licker.

(abolitionists circa 1800) IMO slavery should be banned, and before anyone responds, no I don’t give a shit about the consequences of a change that substantial.

Some things are simple and don't require a nuanced take. I'm not saying ads are anywhere near as important as slavery but the consequences are smaller too. Thinking something is an unmitigated negative and should be got rid of regardless of consequences is a legitimate position.

I think its an interesting insight into how tech company CEOs are deified and have incredible influence. That doesnt disappear by sticking your head in the sand and pretending they don't have influence.

But I guess having to learn 5 million commands to open a folder is bad design, who knew?

Thanks for showing that you're not acting in good faith, bye.

Because as we all know, the free market always comes up with the correct answer and is never distorted by companies.

FWIW, your post is far more insufferable than the one you are calling out.

I must have missed the bit of Citizen Kane where he spoofs a British warship into sailing into Chinese waters then attacks both sides from a stealth submarine.

If you want to ignore almost a millennium of constitutional push and pull over the limits placed on a monarch, sure.

Yes, it was a "fuck off and then we'll talk" demand. As Argentina had to be kicked out by force they didn't get to negotiate.

That's a common misconception, the 99 year lease was on the New Territories, rural areas in the north of HK. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the heavily urban bits you think of when you think Hong Kong) were under no such lease, they had been permanently ceded to Britain when it was just a fishing village on the coast.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]

Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom's favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.

Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it

Yeah the reason HK went the way it did was because China could credibly say "Give it to us or we take it". Argentina already tried the take it by force way, when their military was in a much better state than it is now, and there was effectively no military garrison on the islands. Argentina have pretty much zero leverage here.