my_hat_stinks @ my_hat_stinks @programming.dev

Posts

3

Comments

294

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's well outside my field so I'm definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.

This probably isn't going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they're researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they're not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.

We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for　clinical trials (adult males).

If someone said they were concerned about their sugar intake would you tell them to just stop eating entirely? It's possible to take steps towards privacy-friendly services without cutting yourself off from the modern world in the same way as you can cut back on sugar and still eat food.

You absolutely do not need to "burn all your devices" to improve your privacy, suggesting so is unhelpful at best.

There's no point looking for logic. These people truly believe granting a licence restricts the rights of people who don't agree to the licence, which is the exact opposite of what licenses do. It's blatant misinformation but if you call them out on it (even by quoting their own link) they literally think you're an astroturfer for AI, because that makes more sense to them than the fact they're obviously wrong.

QR codes essentially just encode text, as long as you're using a sensible QR code reader and check any URLs before opening them there's minimal risk to scanning a QR code.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you've described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction "send this". If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that's the notification to be sent, the only reason I'd hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you've described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

Why do you people do this? This isn't !askbots@lemmy.world.

That link is a 404 so I can't tell what it says, but here's a 1996 US act to enforce net neutrality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

And here's a 2006 Tim Berners-Lee blog post about threats to net neutrality which specifically says net neutrality already exists, you really can't get much more authoritive than that: https://web.archive.org/web/20060703142912/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

Obama may have enacted some legislation around between neutrality (again, your link 404s so I can't tell what specifically you're referring to) but it certainly wasn't created under Obama.

What? It's called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It's like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it's rules. That's simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You're just wrong.

The concept of net neutrality definitely existed long before Obama so it's a bit questionable to say it was created under him. Did anything specific happen under him to enforce net neutrality more than it already was?

You're definitely right about Trump though. It seems like he took every opportunity to screw over the US public in favour of corporate interests.

You're entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.

I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice's use breaches Bob's licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob's use breaches Alice's licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie's use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.

By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.

It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties' already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It's incredibly unlikely anyone "fears" you giving them more rights.

If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they're saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you're licencing your content or are they complaining that you're saying the licence does something it does not do?

As for "what business it is" of mine; this is a public forum. If you're not ready to defend yourself don't spread misinformation.

People calling you out for being wrong isn't astroturfing. It's not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.

The problem with your argument is everyone's only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don't need permission the licence doesn't matter. You don't need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.

If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.

And all that's still ignoring the fact you're putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me "irony" then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.

It's definitely worth noting that you've attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.

Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.

CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others' use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you'll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as "consideration"). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg "Copyright (c) 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.") but that hasn't been a requirement for a long time.

Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it's an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.

Likely because it's blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there'd be fewer downvotes if they didn't incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.

Imagine if someone ended every comment with "I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME."

A bit silly, no?

Seems like a non-issue to me. You'll go to whichever hospital is closest. If you're resident in one of the countries you'll be in EU/EEA and get the usual healthcare for residents of whichever country the hospital is in, if you're non-EU it'll depend on what travel insurance you have.

Nothing is cut off? The only thing missing is one bonus panel.

https://www.litterboxcomics.com/birth-stories/