I haven't followed the Sarah Silverman case, but I think it's likely that'll end in a settlement. NYTimes is less likely to settle, since they seem to be trying to set a precedent, and they've got the resources to do that.
Copyright law is full of ambiguities and gray areas, some intentional and some unintentional. The concept of "fair use" is an example of an intentional gray area, since the idea is that society as a whole will benefit from allowing people to skirt copyright law in certain circumstances, and lawmakers can't possibly hope to enumerate every such circumstance. It then falls on courts to determine if a given circumstance falls under "fair use". The problem is courts move very slowly when faced with a new circumstance that hasn't been litigated before, and that's what's happening with AI companies training AI on copyrighted works. Once decisions have been made and stare decisis is established, then they'll move faster. The NY Times vs OpenAI is the case to watch IMO, since that's the biggest one challenging the idea that training AI is fair use.
I asked my goose friend what he thinks about this and he just honked. Though I suspect he didn't hear me, since he seemed to be busy balancing on his unicycle (his feet can't reach the pedals, so he has to flap his wings to balance)
The silliest person I know was deadly serious and no-nonsense at work. Their silly side only came out among friends. Maybe you just need to befriend a goose?
What, you don't let your infants play near downed power lines? Kids these days are so sheltered.
I'm not worried about CCTV footage in the US, at least as far as government surveillance is concerned. The main reason is the difficulty in wiretapping, compared to the payoff. For the government to get access to CCTV cameras owned by private citizens, they'd have to backdoor every single manufacturer, then figure out how to stream footage without being detected. This is definitely possible, but it's considerably more difficult than wiretapping phone conversations. I'm sure the NSA/CIA/etc has done this before on a targeted basis, but doing it in general is very risky and a ton of work(if they want to keep it a secret), and what do they get in return? The NSA has a lot of resources, but it's still limited.
Fun fact: back in the 90s, some motherboards would start playing "Fur Elise" or "It's a Small, Small World" through the internal speaker if the CPU fan was failing. So if you started hearing that, that meant your computer was about to fry itself.
Also, all employees are required to say "POWER UP THE BASS CANON" while filling the drink
This memo proposes another short-term solution, address reuse, that complements CIDR or even makes it unnecessary. The address reuse solution is to place Network Address Translators (NAT) at the borders of stub domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not sp...
From the conclusion: > NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.
I know aleph-null guys. All in the same family. Parents were lazy and named all their kids after the positive integers. 42 is my best friend.
For extra fun, you can name your variables using solely Unicode invisible characters (e.g. non-breaking space) so they're impossible to visually distinguish