I am doing the same exact thing with my domain and getting spam to accounts such as ParkNYC (NYC parking payment app) and other companies that should be safe.
A good and well argued opinion made hostile by saying "get over it" twice! Saying "get over it" discourages further discussion. Your comment would be better without it.
Not an expert, but fair use generally covers education, criticism, parody, and satire. There is a test for meeting fair use and it includes things like amount copied and commercial or non-profit interest.
The amount copied from any particular source might be small, but an aggregate strip-mining of many copyrighted sources is an interesting twist. Another might be, as you suggest, it might be a machine that itself does not violate copyright, but has the effect of causing users (who accept the suggestions) to violate copyright.
Yes, the copyright clause gives as its purpose "the progress of Science," but that doesn't mean that anything which claims to be "progress" gets a free pass.
Indeed, the US supreme court pointedly refused to accept that the purpose clause limits the power of copyright in "Eldred Vs Reno" (at least, that is my understanding as a non lawyer)
"Hi folks! I've been working for the past 6 months on a new talk show, Stevey's Tech Talk. I just dropped the first 16 episodes of "Season 1" on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/grihDH6p
This show is aimed at both technical and non-technical viewers. I talk about the Big Tech industry and cover lots of different topics, aimed at both educating and entertaining. I have almost 30 guests lined up for next season!
This is obviously a big crazy new adventure for me. I have noooo idea where it will lead, but I'm committed now, so we'll see! I hope you enjoy it. Please feel free to share with friends to help my little adventure get off the ground. I will start on Season 2 soon, and try to post a new episode every week."
I wonder if the company's success is not because Clojure is a marvelous language for building systems, but because Clojure is a marvelous people filter?
The board does not remove a CEO it is happy with for something this trivial, because it is too disruptive to the company. This was probably used as a pretext in a power struggle.
- We love our CEO! We'll do anything to keep this boss happy
- We're stuck with a loser, and we need to make a change
- We're in the middle. This CEO has real strengths, which we appreciate, and real weaknesses, which concern us. We're regularly taking stock of the situation, and we'd probably like an orderly transition down the road. But we're probably okay for now.
The third situation is quite common. And in those cases, you don't really need a "pretext" or a "power struggle." You just need the board to say: "We've tolerated a lot, but maybe we've tolerated too much. This new incident is not what we'd be seeing if we had the right CEO."
True, but it's an incident he only informed the board (including new board members) about in late 2020, and is one aspect of his communication with Bloomberg Business that the board told him to stop for 10 months before being terminated.
Getting zonked on a class A drug during an important meeting with investors - so zonked you can't even read your own figures on a whiteboard - is no trivial matter.
Yeh my thought too there's a lot of shady shit that goes on in the VC world.
I think he could have done with advice from a mentor who wasn't at all involved with the vc side - even on how formal meetings like board should be run.
He is right about different cultures around how meetings are run though.
The TikToker has more or less direct relationship with the viewers and customers (advertisers). Developer who does not own the customer relationship is interchangeable and will not be paid on a star level.
Yes, but it is confusing, was "Ivan" a foreigner? We are told he was an employee of the computer firm, and that the terminals were Italian. He got a diplomatic apartment and there was a translator present in the testing day, plus a "protocol lady" (KGB minder). On the other hand, he had a Lada, so maybe from another Warsav pact country?
The article is misleading, in implying that `switch(true)` is a special case: "The fundamental principle of the switch true pattern is that you can match against expressions as well as values."
It should be states as "The fundamental principle of the switch pattern in JavaScript is that you can match against expressions as well as values."
A switch statement first evaluates its expression. It then looks for the first case clause whose expression evaluates to the same value as the result of the input expression
