Oh yes, let me just contact the manufacturer for this appliance and ask them to update it to support automated certificate renewa--

What's that? "Device is end of life and will not receive further feature updates?" Okay, let me ask my boss if I can replace i--

What? "Equipment is working fine and there is no room in the budget for a replacement?" Okay, then let me see if I can find a workaround with existing equipme--

Huh? "Requested feature requires updating subscription to include advanced management capabilities?" Oh, fuck off...

The commercial aspect of the reproduction is not relevant to whether it is an infringement–it is simply a factor in damages and Fair Use defense (an affirmative defense that presupposes infringement).

What you are getting at when it applies to this particular type of AI is effectively whether it would be a fair use, presupposing there is copying amounting to copyright infringement. And what I am saying is that, ignoring certain stupid behavior like torrenting a shit ton of text to keep a local store of training data, there is no copying happening as a matter of necessity. There may be copying as a matter of stupidity, but it isn’t necessary to the way the technology works.

You're conflating whether something is infringement with defenses against infringement. Believe it or not, basically all data transfer and display of copyrighted material on the Internet is technically infringing. That includes the download of a picture to your computer's memory for the sole purpose of displaying it on your monitor. In practice, nobody ever bothers suing art galleries, social media websites, or web browsers, because they all have ironclad defenses against infringement claims: art galleries & social media include a clause in their TOS that grants them a license to redistribute your work for the purpose of displaying it on their website, and web browsers have a basically bulletproof fair use claim. There are other non-infringing uses such as those which qualify for a compulsory license (e.g. live music productions, usually involving royalties), but they're largely not very relevant here. In any case, the fundamental point is that any reproduction of a copyrighted work is infringement, but there are varied defenses against infringement claims that mean most infringing activities never see a courtroom in practice.

All this gets back to the original point I made: Creators retain their copyright even when uploading data for public use, and that copyright comes with heavy restrictions on how third parties may use it. When an individual uploads something to an art website, the website is free and clear of any claims for copyright infringement by virtue of the license granted to it by the website's TOS. In contrast, an uninvolved third party--e.g. a non-registered user or an organization that has not entered into a licensing agreement with the creator or the website (*cough* OpenAI)--has no special defense against copyright infringement claims beyond the baseline questions: was the infringement for personal, noncommercial use? And does the infringement qualify as fair use? Individual users downloading an image for their private collection are mostly A-OK, because the infringement is done for personal & noncommercial use--theoretically someone could sue over it, but there would have to be a lot of aggravating factors for it to get beyond summary judgment. AI companies using web scrapers to download creators' works do not qualify as personal/noncommercial use, for what I hope are bloody obvious reasons.

As for a model trained purely for research or educational purposes, I believe that it would have a very strong claim for fair use as long as the model is not widely available for public use. Once that model becomes publicly available, and/or is leveraged commercially, the analysis changes, because the model is no longer being used for research, but for commercial profit. To apply it to the real world, when OpenAI originally trained ChatGPT for research, it was on strong legal ground, but when it decided to start making it publicly available, they should have thrown out their training dataset and built up a new one using data in the public domain and data that it had negotiated a license for, trained ChatGPT on the new dataset, and then released it commercially. If they had done that, and if individuals had been given the option to opt their creative works out of this dataset, I highly doubt that most people would have any objection to LLM from a legal standpoint. Hell, they probably could have gotten licenses to use most websites' data to train ChatGPT for a song. Instead, they jumped the gun and tipped their hand before they had all their ducks in a row, and now everybody sees just how valuable their data is to OpenAI and are pricing it accordingly.

Oh, and as for your edit, you contradicted yourself: in your first line, you said "The commercial aspect of the reproduction is not relevant to whether it is an infringement." In your edit, you said "the infringement happens when you reproduce the images for a commercial purpose." So which is it? (To be clear, the initial download is infringing copyright both when I download the image for personal/noncommercial use, and also when I download it to make T-shirts with. The difference is that the first case has a strong defense against an infringement claim that would likely get it dismissed in summary, while the cases of making T-shirts would be straightforward claims of infringement.)

Watch up to the last episode, then watch End of Evangelion for the canon ending. And/or watch the rebuild movies for a condensed retelling that goes in its own direction.

Or they think that the people above their station deserve those benefits--they genuinely think and support the rich getting richer is a good thing, regardless of whether they'll see any benefit themselves. It's the mirror image of the progressive mindset of voting to raise their own taxes to help the needy.

Yup, this was one of the central debates with gay marriage vs. civil unions, so many LGBT+ couples were absolutely screwed pre-Obergefell by one of the partners getting sick or dying, and the surviving partner either having no say in medical decisions or getting screwed out of inheritance because the sick/dead partner's family was anti-gay and froze the surviving partner out of everything.

I think it's because Spotify frequently includes the same song as being on multiple albums separately--for example, if a band has a greatest hits album, Spotify considers the greatest hits album as a different song, even though it's identical to the song on the original album.

I haven't accidentally deleted a bunch of data yet (which, considering 99% of my interaction with Linux is when I'm SSH'd into a user's server, I am very paranoid about not doing), but I have run fsck on a volume without mounting the read/write flashcache with dirty blocks on it first.

Oops.

And look at the ttrpg.network community for a counterexample, they still have a pinned post on the dndmemes subreddit advertising Lemmy and ttrpgmemes gets like .1% of the traffic dndmemes does. And this is still after a months-long rebellion complete with allowing NSFW and restricting submissions to a single user account, both things that would normally kill a subreddit dead.

The problem is that there's no incentive for employees to stay beyond a few years. Why spend months or years training someone if they leave after the second year?

But then you have to question why employees aren't loyal any longer, and that's because pensions and benefits have eroded, and your pay doesn't keep up as you stay longer at a company. Why stay at a company for 20, 30, or 40 years when you can come out way ahead financially by hopping jobs every 2-4 years?

It means you can get a divorce for any reason. Without that, you have to show evidence of wrongdoing by your spouse in court before you can get divorced. Needless to say, this can be very difficult if your spouse is good at covering their tracks, or if you can't afford a lawyer to help present your case.

The reason I know I'd fail as a politician is because the instant I get asked anything about Israel / Palestine, I'd either run away screaming or I'd throw my hands up and say "I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole, they both suck and everyone except the civilians caught in the crossfire deserve whatever they get."

This whole conflict isn't black and white morality, or even black and gray morality. It barely qualifies as black and slightly-less-black-if-you-squint morality. It's like Luke trying to blow up the Death Star, if the Death Star was populated mostly with families, children, and puppies, and Luke ate a baby while he was rescuing the princess.

Linux is pretty much universally free, with the exception of a few select distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and even then, there's variants of RHEL that are free like CentOS and Fedora, the main attraction for RHEL is paid support).

Most distributions are fairly similar, these days, with the main differences being the desktop environment (i.e. how the UI looks and feels), the update cadence (some distros are much more aggressive about deploying updates to the software and utilities underlying the distro, which gives new features faster at the cost of breaking things more often, while other distros prefer to stay on older, known-stable versions longer, at the cost of being slower to deploy new features that sometimes a program needs to run), and the methods used to configure settings (some distros go out of their way to make as much configureable in the GUI as possible, while others are primarily configured through console commands, and others like Gentoo expect you to manually compile pretty much all the software yourself--this makes it extremely customizable, but extremely difficult), and the default file format for package installation (rpm, deb, flatpaks, snaps, etc).

My personal recommendation is to check out a few of these:

• Ubuntu

• Linux Mint (or Cinnamon)

• EndeavorOS

• Pop!OS

I also recommend that when you first format the disk, you make two partitions: one smaller 50-100 GB partition for the root partition (where Linux stores its system files and software), and a larger partition for /home, which is where all your personal files are stored. This way, you can easily swap between different distros without needing to really worry about losing your files.