There are the Trump cases that are objectively easy to prosecute (especially the stolen document case), since the law is clear and no good lawyer wants to represent Trump. Here the DOJ has clearly been dragging his feet for reasons that are unrelated to the legal system.

Then there are these antitrust cases that are objectively EXTREMELY complex, and where the legal arguments have to be very carefully constructed to withstand a challenge from the best lawyers money can buy. Complain about the former, not the latter

Which planet were these pictures taken on? On my planet the sun looks much bigger.

This is not about his looks, but about the misogynistic content he creates. If you are accused of rape, and you openly talk about coercing women into sexual acts I’d say that it checks out.

I am not sure I follow that. The scale is always relative right? It’s just the zero that’s absolute. But that’s also the case with measuring angles where we do use the degree symbol.

With music this often ends up in civil court. Pretty sure the same can in theory happen for written texts, but the commercial value of most written texts is not worth the cost of litigation.

That was literally in my post. Obviously, in that case the library pays for copyright

Another good question is why AIs do not mindlessly regurgitate source material. The reason is that they have access to so much copyrighted material. If they were trained on only one book, they would constantly regurgitate material from that one book. Because it’s trained on many (millions) books, it’s able to get creative. So the argument of OpenAI really boils down to: “we are not breaking copyright law, because we have used sufficient copyrighted material to avoid directly infringing on copyright”.

I know my way around the Jolly Roger myself. At the same time using copyrighted materials in a commercial setting (as OpenAI does) shouldn’t be free.

I am also not really getting the argument. If I as a human want to learn a subject from a book I buy it ( or I go to a library who paid for it). If it’s similar to how humans learn, it should cost equally much.

The issue is of course that it’s not at all similar to how humans learn. It needs VASTLY more data to produce something even remotely sensible. Develop AI that’s truly transformative, by making it as efficient as humans are in learning, and the cost of paying for copyright will be negligible.

The current generation of data hungry AI models with energy requirements of a small country should be replaced ASAP, so if copyright laws spur innovation in that direction I am all for it.

Trump gives tax cuts to the rich. Rich people own the media. This has always been true, but with the extreme increase in inequality, it’s never been worse. There’s no longer a liberal media.

They are right wing. The main issue is that it’s just impossible to convince the MAGA crowd to vote in their own best interest. So instead the battle ranges around suburbanites, who are generally well off and don’t want to change the system too much.

There’s a huge difference between day/night storage which is sufficient for most locations in the world that are somewhat closer to the equator, and seasonal storage. We have no good solution for seasonal storage at the moment.

Really? Does that also count for Germans during WW2? They suffered a ton more than the Russians in Kursk do now. Just to be clear, I would be strongly opposed to fire bombing Russians (as we casually did to WW2 Germans/Japanese civilians). However, I would say that the current Ukrainian invasion into Russia falls well within the bounds of a proportional response.

Household plastic is essentially non-recyclable. No way is plastic waste ever sufficiently sorted by the type of plastic, or cleaned sufficiently from food rests etc. The focus should be on Reduce, Reuse, and properly dispose. That most likely means burning it. Great? No way. Better than in nature? Hell yeah. Better than shipping it to Asia for pretend recycle? Definitely.

Again, just not true. From before the pandemic (2019) to now, profits have increased by about 25 percent.

It’s quite common to test for testosterone. For one because synthetic testosterone is on the doping list. That’s also why the IBA test is so suspicious. If her testosterone was at male levels, that should have been discovered way earlier with a doping test.

There are tons of profits. They are just in the hands of people like Musk/Bezos.

This is were the SC gets to pretend to be fair and balanced, rather than partisan extremists because they also ruled against Trump. When a more serious challenge comes in, watch them make an outrageous ruling in Trumps favour.

In that case most of us (incl future president Kamala) are intergenders.