Illegally downloading creative works is most assuredly _not_ theft, according to either the dictionary or the legal definitions, as no possessions are being taken and no one is being deprived of their property. Downloading creative works may or may not constitute copyright infringement; Relabeling it as "theft" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at re-framing the conversation in a way that maximally benefits corporate interests.
It's similar to theft only in the sense that you get stuff for free without permission.
Before electronic copies, the only way to do that would be to physically steal such a thing. However, if it were possible to make copies of things via magic, without depriving people of such things, I don't think people would consider it theft. In literature, people tended to look on the idea of such things as wonderful miracles, to be celebrated -- feeding a herd of people from only a few fish, or a fairy godmother spinning fancy clothes via magic. No one ever reading Cinderella has ever considered it immoral for the fairy godmother to generate such a thing, and I suspect that most of society would similarly view it as natural and moral to let friends have copies of things that we have.
Imagine being able to say, "Oh, yeah, this desk has perfect ergonomics for me! here's the pattern/recipe and you can print one once you get home", or "oh yeah, I like this TV design way better than my old one, here's how you can make one too" -- in short, we _absolutely_ would download a car, or give someone else a copy of our car.
Now if only we could figure out how to pass value to creators and inventors in a way that isn't threatened by that, or by the advent of inventing-things-via-AI.
You are wrong about copying. It was perfectly normal to photocopy books at schools and universities since these were long out of print, the libraries didn't have enough copies, or whatever other reason, in some areas of the world even before computers.
Your points strongly align with my views, and “how to pass value” is why I have been so excited by contract-native blockchains.
I can imagine a world where each creative negotiates their public contract associated with a work, then when the work is released anyone in the world can pay/donate anything they want to the wallet in direct recognition and know without question that every creator will get a fair piece of it.
“Piracy” would be the same as the radio (a convenient way to get exposure), and I suspect that people who do the actual work would see much less drama.
As the sibling to yours said, it is closest to forgery or counterfeiting, rather than theft. I don't think that changes it much re. maximally benefiting corporate interests. It might benefit them a little less maximally, but not by much.
You’re right. That one time my employer didn’t pay me for 3 pay circles- it wasn’t theft, it was piracy or copyright infringement. Simply a breach in contract.
Probably because, by the creator's own admission, the articles are heavily cherry-picked to make sure the output is decent, which is probably a lot more human effort than goes into the aforementioned search engine fodder.
That's... so weirdly ironic I can't even! Blogspam websites are made by real humans with little oversight, while a literal AI with oversight generates better results.
That said, with a little tweaking, these technologies can - and probably already are - being used to churn out blogspam websites left and right, fully automatic.
That is patently absurd. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, especially if contraceptives were used and failed.
At the risk of stretching the metaphor to its breaking point, this is you choosing to go out and get drunk while aware that members of an unethical music lovers' organization are skulking about looking for victims to graft sick violinists onto. Sure, they no longer need to actively drug you because you willingly did that yourself, but that doesn't imply your consent to what happens next.
Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy
It's as much consent to pregnancy as dropping a cinderblock on your foot is consent to a broken toe or eating ten cheeseburgers a day is consent to getting fat.
No, it's really, really not, and this line of reasoning is getting absurd.
People around the world routinely engage in frequent sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. If you show me even a fraction of that same number of people who have demonstrated an ability to consume ten cheeseburgers a day for a prolonged period without gaining weight, maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise, this is just a blatant false equivalence.
People around the world routinely engage in frequent sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant
Yes, and people routinely take methamphetamine without having a heart attack and shoot themselves without dying. That doesn't obviate the fact that pregnancy is the direct result of coitus. Claiming you did not consent to the function for which a body part evolved when you used that body part is like saying you didn't consent to sweating when you went for a summer jog. Sure, you may certainly take measures to prevent an undesired outcome but the physical results of your choices can only be tragedy, not injustice.
That’s very good. But what do I know about “Cure53” other than they are saying “Yea, trust them bro”.
Is Cure53 incorruptible? Would there be any blip in the world if they were not and Mull was really an NSA op?
I’m not saying I don’t trust Mull over say, Nord. I am saying the nature of the whole thing is non-falsifiable with our existing technologies. We can only determine who was lying by looking back after an incident, and most are kept secret.
You could say the same about all auditing. A restaurant could have changed its food hygiene standards since it was audited. But a company with a history of periodic and successful audits is certainly a good trust marker for me.
Restaurants routinely can't uphold their standards and often get wildly different results on every inspection. But yes I do say the same about all audits.
FDA approval or not was not the statement I made. Even in your link it expressly says they are still being distributed under the EUA not under normal law
They were technically correct. The lookup time on a binary search tree is O(H), which is equal to O(log2n) if the tree is balanced. Tree data structures invest a lot of complexity into keeping the tree balanced.
Doesn't this only affect inserts and deletes though? I mean I get your point, but on a read you can assume that a binary tree is balanced (by definition). Or am I missing something?
Krav Maga minus the parts that are illegal or irrelevant to UFC basically _is_ MMA, which is unsurprising since the whole concept of the method since its inception in the 1940s is to collect effective and intuitive techniques from any martial art you can find. (Sort of a _mix_ of different martial arts, one might say...)
There's at least one successful mixed martial artist with a Krav Maga background (Karolina Kowalkiewicz, UKM Expert level 2), but she's definitely an outlier rather than the rule. Krav Maga tries to be a no-rules self-defense method that can be trained in as little time as possible. If your aim is to be a high-level competitor in a specific sport, and you have the required time and athletic ability to train appropriately, then your best bet is to skip the middleman and train in that sport directly.
