archontes

No again. That Harvard epidemiologist speaking in an offhand way made it seem as though the only people who needed to take the vaccine were the elderly and their caretakers, which is emphatically untrue.

What he likely meant, though didn't communicate, was that only people with prior natural infection need not take it.

But even that is misinformation, though it might be his professional opinion. If it is his professional opinion, it verges on malpractice, because it was indeterminate at the time to what degree a natural infection destroyed immune memory cells. We have later found evidence that severe covid-19 cases do in fact disrupt immune memory [1]. This is a thing he should know to be wary of, as measles famously erases huge swathes of immune memory.

This in addition to the systemic effects of huge spikes leading to moderate to severe cases going without proper care as a result of a squeeze on resources...

It was a bad take, and everyone reading it should have been told it was a bad take.

[1] https://news.uthscsa.edu/immune-memory-less-durable-after-se...

I'm running ubuntu server on my 3b as well, and other than some initial networking finagling, it's been painless.

I've thought about it, and donated my own money to Ukraine. My fiancee has as well. We have close friends who are Ukrainian.

There are many things that are important; equal rights for all Americans, ending slavery in America, increasing healthcare access, reducing rent-seeking in all its forms, equal rights outside of America. The implication is that I'm a hypocrite if I don't volunteer to be a foot soldier in any one of a hundred important things, but doing so is mutually exclusive. And that's only for the selfless items. What about being a parent? Should one not advocate for Ukraine if they're not willing to orphan their child, or take them with them to a war zone?

Russia is an illiberal coalition of mafias engaging in a never-ending power grab. The limit behavior of such a system is that technological innovation will never be allowed to thrive as it will always fall to violent entrepreneurship, and that the most successful violent entrepreneur will always ensure that no other elements gain enough wealth and power to threaten the power of the current leader. What Russia is follows from what Russia's culture does, and its modus operandi results in destitution and war.

I don't like that, and feel that for everyone's good, Russia's modus operandi should not expand.

Now. Russia has a problem. It has 1.8 times the area of the US and less than half the population. They're surrounded by flat, dry areas where it sucks to live, but you can roll a Panzer division right through. The upshot is that they've been invaded 50-something times in their history because they can't defend it. Because Russia is intrinsically handicapped when it comes to technological innovation and population, they don't have a road network, they have a rail network, which means that its attempts at defending its territory will be in the form of fixed defenses, and those fixed defenses have to be placed at bottlenecks on the far side of the flat areas (far side relative to their wheat belt).

There are nine of these bottlenecks: The Polish Gap on the far side of Belarus, The Baltic Sea through Lithuania and Latvia, the Bessarabian Gap on the far side of Ukraine/Romania, the Black Sea through Crimea, the east and west sides of the Caucasus mountains in Georgia, the Central Asian Corridor through Uzbekistan, the Tien Shan-Atlay Shan Gap, and the White Sea.

The Soviet Union controlled all nine, and after they broke up, Russia went to controlling only one. Putin has been systematically attempting to control the remaining eight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

Ukraine is not in one of these gateways, it's on the way to two. Putin won't stop even after he controls all of Ukraine.

To make things even more dangerous, not only has their technology not kept up, but their logistics are also terrible, and we learned quickly from their first convoy into Ukraine that they can no longer effectively fight a war against a modern opponent, which means that when they trigger NATO article 5, they'll be soundly beaten, which for obvious reasons they will regard as an existential threat, and nuclear weapons will not just be their last resort, they will be their only resort.

So to avoid this, I support Ukraine receiving any and all material support that anyone in the world wants to give them. A resounding defeat in Ukraine stands a chance of dealing such a political blow to Putin as to unseat him from power, and hopefully avoid such an eventuality.

So. Russia culture bad. Nukes bad. Help Ukraine.

Addendum. The username of the person to whom I am replying is 'cudgy', and they appear to be a Russian apologist.

Consent isn't required if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I can take your photo in public, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I can even distribute that photo, and you can't, and if you do, I can sue you for copyright infringement. I own your likeness, in a finite way.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/but-it-s-a-photo-of-me-cel...

I think this should be protected.

A business owner should be able to decline to host someone adversarial to that business.

It seems likely to me that in time the diamond capsule will be the analog for a primer in a cartridge.

I want to supply Ukraine every material assistance available until the 2014 borders are restored, and the Kremlin along with everyone inside it are as flat as a pancake by way of a long range armament.

How does an open protocol ever deal with the content moderation tech tree [1]?

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you...

I still believe that linux is unsuitable for the vast majority of people. I virtualize all of my workstations with proxmox, and have the ability to backup and restore snapshots quickly, and without that ability, the number of times a gui recommended kernel update would just kill large portions of my system is too damn high.

Kernel 5.15 still seems to be incompatible with running two monitors on a GTX 1080TI with any of the proprietary nvidia drivers I've tried.

This is kind of silly.

Both personal autonomy and private property are social constructs we agree are valuable. Stealing a car and raping a person are things we've identified as unacceptable and codified into law.

And in stark contrast, intellectual property is something we've identified as being valuable to extend limited protections to in order to incentivize creative and technological development. It is not a sacred right, it's a gambit.

It's us saying, "We identify that if we have no IP protection whatsoever, many people will have no incentive to create, and nobody will ever have an incentive to share. Therefore, we will create some protection in these specific ways in order to spur on creativity and development."

There's no (or very little) ethics to it. We've created a system not out of respect for people's connections to their creations, but in order to entice them to create so we can ultimately expropriate it for society as a whole. And that system affords protection in particular ways. Any usage that is permitted by the system is not only not unethical, it is the system working.

And plenty of opportunity, and perhaps a gentle push in that direction?

You mean the AI model itself, the weights?

A derivative work is a creative expression based on another work that receives its own copyright protection. It's very unlikely that AI weights would be considered a creative expression, and would thus not be considered a derivative work. At this point, you probably can't copyright your AI weights.

An AI might create work that could be considered derivative if it were the creative output of a human, but it's not a human, and thus the outputs are unlikely to be considered derivative works, though they may be infringing.

I wasn't speaking about dissemination by the model at all. It's possible for an AI to create an infringing work.

It's not possible for training an AI using data that was obtained legally to be copyright infringement. This is what I was talking about regarding transmission. Copyright provides a legal means for a rights holder to limit the creation of a copy of their image in order to be transmitted to me. If a rights holder has placed their image on the internet for me to view, then copyright does not provide them a means to restrict how I choose to consume that image.

The AI may or may not create outputs that can be considered derivative works, or contain characters protected by copyright.

You seem to be making an argument that we should be changing this somehow. I suppose I'll say "maybe". But it is apparent to me that many people don't know how intellectual property works.

A thing that can be viewed can be learned from.

I can't copy your GPL code. I might be able to write my own code that does the same thing.

I'm going to defend this statement in advance. A lot of software developers white knight more than they strictly have to; they claim that learning from GPL code unavoidably results in infringing reproduction of that code.

Courts, however, apply a test [1], in an attempt to determine the degree to which the idea is separable from the expression of that idea. Copyright protects particular expression, not idea, and in the case that the idea cannot be separated from the expression, the expression cannot be copyrighted. So either I'm able to produce a non-infringing expression of the idea, or the expression cannot be copyrighted, and the GPL license is redundant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...

Of course it will. Their employment isn't sacred. They have a skill, we're teaching that skill to computers, and their skill will be worth less.

I don't pay someone to run calculations for me, either, also a difficult and sometimes creative process. I use a computer. And when the computer can't, then I either employ my creativity, or hire a creative.

The 'reasonable claim of ownership' extends to restricting transmission, not use after transmission.

Artists are poets, and they're railing against Trurl's electronic bard.

[https://electricliterature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tr...]

Consent isn't required if they're making their work available for public viewing.

It is not a huge ethical issue. The artists have always been at risk of someone learning their style if they make their work available for public viewing.

We've just made "learning style" easier, so a thing that was always a risk is now happening.

Tell that to whistleblowers.

Apply directly to the bank account and contracting officers' pens.

No money, no promises.

Live in freedom... the state of nature, so to say?

Why? What's unusual about considering applying a permanent, definite solution to a problem that one wants to both eliminate and disincentivize?

I suppose I'll venture a guess: considering ending a life as a solution to a problem places a certain measurable value on the life and compares it to the value of solving the problem. Perhaps you find other peoples' valuations strange. For my part, I think that there are a few things that are valuable including people's ability to generally live their lives, but also the ability to live in a society that isn't likely to kill you on a whim. But, imo, it's pretty easy to weigh the cost of things that are threats to those very things, e.g. a murderer.

An Introduction to Complex Analysis for Engineers by Michael Alder

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/math/Mathematics%20-%20An%...

>Not sure if you understood the parent's statement. Money is created largely by loans - when banks lend $1m to a company, the company owes $1m to the bank and gets $1m, but no one loses $1m anywhere. And by spending that $1m somewhere else, a fresh $1m is printed out of thin air and goes into circulation. When the company pays that back, that $1m is destroyed.

So your contention is that Bank of America prints the $1m dollars that it loans to me? Color me skeptical. I imagine they'd have better rates if they had a money printer. Or maybe they wouldn't bother loaning money at all.

No rules.

Your bank account is the solidest non-money because FDIC insured up to $100,000. If it weren't, then it would be an IOU from a bank, worth whatever that trust is worth.

In your loan example, either you haven't spent the money they loaned you, which would then be reclaimed, or you have spent it, in which case someone else has it.

No money would be destroyed in either scenario, unless what you did with the loan was put it in a suitcase and burn it.

The only things that remove money from circulation are: bank accounts that only accrete (usually temporary, and thus not actual removal), taxes, and physical destruction.

I'm not sure it should be regulated. But it should be dyed. I should have the ability to say, "No crypto in my retirement portfolio, please." and have that be a knowable and enforceable property.

Correct. In the case that it stops transacting, the value of bitcoin as a system would be zero.

In the case where the costs are larger than the value produced, but are not paid by the bitcoin system (external, you might say), then it would still have net negative value, but continue to operate.

It's more like we have discovered that our estimation that $20 of wealth existed was incorrect, and only $10 existed. Someone speculated incorrectly.

It's like a gold mine being revealed as barren. Whether you say wealth was destroyed or wasn't there to begin with is... distinction without a difference.

This is just a demonstration that this is a naive way of estimating value.