Looks like a badly warped panorama to me
Eccitaze
joined 2 years ago
I never want to hear the phrase "Biden tops Trump" in my life ever again. Thanks for that mental image... 🤮
Still a copyright violation, especially if you make it publicly available and claim the work as your own for commercial purposes. At the very minimum, tracing without fully attributing the original work is considered to be in poor enough taste that most art sites will permaban you for doing it, no questions asked.
In my last apartment, the flush lever broke and I couldn't be arsed to call maintenance, so I popped over to the hardware store and grabbed a replacement for 5 bucks. As I was putting the lid back on after installing the replacement, it shattered into 3 huge shards in my hand while I was holding it, for no apparent reason. One of those shards cut deep into the side of my hand like a hot knife through butter, right where my pinky met my palm. Barely avoided severing a nerve, and I still have a visible scar where it cut me.
Porcelain is no fucking joke, man.
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.
I upgraded for freaking Hogwarts Legacy...
But hey, it prodded me to pick RDR2 back up and beat it, so it wasn't a complete waste.
No, but see, they're charging the money with a crime, not you! And because it's not a human they're charging, silly things like constitutional rights don't apply!
The only thing more absurd than that argument is that a judge bought that argument.
Yeah, last time I ordered through grubhub from a Chinese restaurant, by the time I paid the delivery fee, inflated menu price, service charge, and driver tip, I was looking at almost $90 for mid-tier Chinese food. I ordered by calling the restaurant up and ordering takeout and paid $40 instead.
I literally could order from halfway across the state and make a road trip out of it and still come out ahead.
We don't know, all we know iirc is that at least four justices said "nah bro go through the regular appeals process." So reading the tea leaves, at least Thomas and Alito, plus any two of Gorsuch, Roberts, ACB, and Kavanaugh said no, at minimum.
It's hard to say with certainty what this signals about how they'll rule on the various Trump cases, but at minimum it indicates that they either don't realize that he's trying to delay the trials in the hopes he can win the election and have them all dropped, or they don't care that's what he's doing. If they really_don't_ care, it could be because they approve of his actions--and will likely rule in his favor--or simply because they value strict adherence to the regular process even at the potential risk of allowing an unqualified candidate (in the actual constitutional sense) obtaining office and doing whatever damage he can. None of those reasons bode very well for this particular case, IMO.
Yeah, literally the only pathway to ruling Trump is not barred is by throwing out the entire finding of fact by the Colorado supreme court that Trump engaged in an insurrection. It's not impossible since appellate courts do technically have this power, but appellate courts are usually supposed to give extreme deference to lower courts when it comes to their findings of fact--the standard from my brief bit of research is that the lower court's findings must be "clearly erroneous."
So given how batshit our current court is I expect at least two surefire no votes from Thomas and Alito. Gorsuch is probably a yes vote given how much of a strict textualist he's turned out to be, as are the entire liberal bloc. Ironically, Roberts is yet again the most likely swing vote, and I honestly don't know if he'd sign off on disqualifying him. I could see anything from 7-2 in favor of upholding to 5-4 or 6-3 overturning. Considering their recent signal in the form of denying Smith's request for expedited review, I'm... honestly not optimistic.
Yeah, because the presidency was already covered by the phrase "any office, civil or military." This very concern is brought up during the congressional debates over ratifying the amendment, and is addressed:
But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President.
Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."
Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.
Source: https://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf page 60
So the original people drafting the Amendment understood it to cover the presidency.
It makes sense to judge how closely LLMs mimic human learning when people are using it as a defense to AI companies scraping copyrighted content, and making the claim that banning AI scraping is as nonsensical as banning human learning.
But when it's pointed out that LLMs don't learn very similarly to humans, and require scraping far more material than a human does, suddenly AIs shouldn't be judged by human standards? I don't know if it's intentional on your part, but that's a pretty classic example of a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You can't have it both ways.