Trains are easy and they’re easily electrified already. So putting solar on the trains won’t have any advantage.

Rails are the difficult part of railways. They never seem to put them between my house and my work. They’ve put something called a road in between instead.

Not when you consider the maintenance costs of the plants they closed. Basically of them were beyond original design life.

And the democracy sausage!

“Regular people”

https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2024/08/survey-one-in-four-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/

Incorrect

Resign from the senate.

Rather than just going back to that job after the campaign.

This campaign is literally zero cost for him as it stands. He’s a senator and will continue being a senator if he loses.

He should be forced to resign for things he’s done and admitted doing publicly.

When fusion or fission occurs you get new atoms.

It’s Hydrogen that’s existed since the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to make atoms. Seconds after the big bang.

That’s most hydrogen.

It’s never been fused into heavier elements just still sticking around and caught in the planetary part of the solar system rather than the sun itself. Or any previous suns.

There’s some helium like that but most helium was formed inside suns later, and heavier elements all formed later in suns or supernovas.

VLC

Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.

If you look at the graph, 0GW.

It’s unlikely that the batteries stored power for several days. Highly likely that abundance of solar is the source.

Well how is it un-typical?

iPods had an 82% share of the US market at the time the term was first used.

https://www.theregister.com/2004/10/12/ipod_us_share/

At the time a “broadcast” to you iPod made the name podcast pretty understandable.

And there’s not much else I could think of to call it given technology at the time.

MP3 player was the generic term. But MP3 cast feels clunky.

I did hear audioblog used. But they weren’t all blogs.

It really comes down to the fact that at the time everyone knew “pod” meant “iPod” and that’s it.

“The Joker” is a generic description of a character. Going back to medieval courts.

If the result is a copyrighted version of that character that’s not the promoters fault.

That’s the fault of the ones who compile the training data.

So you’re saying if it’s easy to accidentally get copyright images out of this AI by prompting ordinary worlds. Then the AI designers have some questions to answer.

If you try to bread with an autonomous knife and the knife kills you by stabbing you in the head. Is it solely your fault?

Machines aren’t culpable in law.

There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.

The debate is, which humans are culpable?

The programmers, trainers, or prompters?

Then who created this image in your view?

The point is to prove that copyrighted material has been used as training data. As a reference.

If a human being gets asked to draw the joker, gets a still from the film, then copies it to the best of their ability. They can’t sell that image. Technically speaking they’ve broken the law already by making a copy. Lots of fan art is illegal, it’s just not worth going after (unless you’re Disney or Nintendo).

As a subscription service that’s what AI is doing. Selling the output.

Held to the same standards as a human artist, this is illegal.

If AI is allowed to copy art under copyright, there’s no reason a human shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing.

Proving the reference is all important.

If an AI or human only ever saw public domain artwork and was asked to draw the joker, they might come up with a similar character. But it would be their own creation. There are copyright cases that hinge on proving the reference material. (See Blurred Lines by Robin Thick)

The New York Times is proving that AI is referencing an image under copyright because it comes out precisely the same. There are no significant changes at all.

In fact even if you come up with a character with no references. If it’s identical to a pre-existing character the first creator gets to hold copyright on it.

This is undefendable.

Even if that AI is a black box we can’t see inside. That black box is definitely breaking the law. There’s just a different way of proving it when the black box is a brain and when the black box is an AI.