The short version is that an actor's AI double, and an AI amalgam of several actors, will be treated as a proxy for the actor(s). The actor can agree or decline the use of their AI proxy based on the scene, and are compensated for use of their likeness as if they had gone in person. It's a pretty big win for actors considering studios wanted unlimited usage for a one time payment.
I feel that this can be addressed at application step. Any date of birth proven to be under 18 cannot apply without an in person interview. This protects minors from taking on debt without fully understanding the implications, and puts responsibility on the lender for providing credit to a minor. If credit is provided and defaults the debt should be the lender's problem for taking such a huge risk.
Alternatively, the same premise with the exception that an adult is required as a cosigner. If the account defaults the burden is shifted to the adult as they have the cognizance to understand and take responsibility.
I wouldn't outright ban giving accounts to minors. My parents opened a savings account in my name and kept it in good standing. This gave me a big credit boost that my peers never had. But I realize I am an exception, and the problem others face is very real.
Presumably getting ready to launch his own presidential bid, so he needs to court the center by appearing more moderate.
The advertising angle is likely what sank their case. Proving the food does not meet a technical specification, like not having a quarter pound of beef in a fully cooked patty, is easier to prove. But advertising has always been hyperbole.
This is your daily reminder to engage and boost Twitter alternatives such as Mastodon. It's not enough to ignore Twitter. We must build communities to draw in users, show them social media can exist without Elon or Zuck. Only when good alternatives exist, with content and people sought after, do users feel safe to abandon old platforms.
They do have intelligence, but that intelligence is deliberately underfunded to prevent this very situation. It's impossible to navigate the mountains of paperwork and legal loopholes the ultra-wealthy use with so few hands. That's why poorer filers get audited more often: less leg work, easier wins, at the expense of real revenue and justice against tax evaders.
Said it before, I'll say it again:
It’s been shown the software is still not ready for production by interfering with emergency services, public transit, and normal traffic. These companies need to send these vehicles with a driver until the software is ironed out. We suspend human drivers for such actions. We must extend the same expectations and consequences to driverless vehicles.
If a human driver blocked an ambulance and caused a patient death, they'd be imprisoned for wrongful death. Cruise wants to roll out their software in this state, let them shoulder the legal and financial consequences.
Most important paragraph in the whole article:
The Southern District of New York court issued its final order in Hachette v. Internet Archive on March 24, 2023. It found that Internet Archive was liable for copyright infringement. The consent judgement of August 11 has banned the Open Library from scanning or distributing commercially available books in digital formats.
The premise of the Internet Archive is perfectly legal, but we have dimwits who think anything and everything can be uploaded for "archival purposes". This won't be the last time we see this because people are actively abusing the site.
Don't believe me? Go to the archive and search "anime". Are the first results you see forgotten 1960s shows whose only source materials are moldy VHS tapes because the studio went under and the copyright is in limbo? No. The entirety of fucking Naruto, iconic movies like Ghost in the Shell, the whole remastered Dragon Ball Blu-ray set, and who knows how much more.
No, just because it's not available where you are does not justify uploading. If geo-blocking doesn't work for a monolith like YouTube it certainly won't work for the Archive. One visit from copyright owners lawyers in their territory and it's another black eye for the Archive.
The archive is in the right for works that are out of print AND, AND, I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, have no commercial equivalent or rightful copyright owner. Those old cookbooks by authors and publishers long gone, great! Vintage DOS games, do some reseach, make sure it's not commercially available on sites like GOG before uploading. A fan subbed show, upload the subtitles only. Your favorite show that is streamable but you won't pay for, put it on a tracker and seed it elsewhere.
Elon: "There are too many fake accounts for me to seriously consider buying this company."
Also Elon, after creating millions of inactive accounts to follow himself: "Please clap."
This is a scam as old as time. An old professor of mine did the math, realized buying a new bottom tier printer was cheaper than buying its corresponding refills. Her husband was understandably furious at the stack of pristine printers pilling up in the garage.
While you do save money on ink for larger printers (laser/pro photo inkjet) you are losing a lot of money just to start up. Its also worth noting that liquid ink has a shelf life, drying out, hardening, and a hassle to clean out if not used.
On an interesting note: the EcoTank system is a reversal of the Stylus Pro and SureColor tank system. Instead of slotting in a fresh tank, you're just pouring a bottle into a permanent tank. Good to see Epson taking a practical and consumer friendly approach.
There's also an underlying layer to this problem with a specific type of home owner: the foreign investor. These individuals use American properties to hide their wealth from their home countries. Tax evasion, high ROI, and increased scarcity in every purchase. Homes often go months and years without occupancy, sometimes with minimal furnishings so as not to appear vacant.
I'm not saying foreigners shouldn't buy homes in America. However, if they do buy a home they should be required to occupy each individual property for a minimum of 6-9 months every year. Otherwise, a heavy tax that exceeds the property's/ies annual appreciation to encourage occupancy or selling would be ideal.
Found an earlier article by El Observador before the legislation passed. Under Uruguay's old laws Spotify, YouTube, an other streaming platforms paid little to nothing in artist royalties. With the new legislation artists will now see fair compensation.
The Guardian does a better job explaining Spotify's problem: do the royalties come from rights holders (I am assuming they're referring to record labels) or the streaming services? The later case they believe will cause them to pay double what they're paying for streaming rights.
The issue just needs to back to Uruguay's government to sort out who pays the artist royalties, or if both labels and streaming share a proportionate responsibility.