In many, many significant ways, perpetual civil commitment (to an "institution") is far more horrific of a state than being in prison. People like you are incredibly fucking stupid.
The US justice system is explicitly punitive and not habilitative. That is why questions of "insanity" as it relates to culpability are critically important, for better or (largely) worse. This means that the outcome kf the process is not victim or even a perpetrator oriented--it is intended to provide the general shitass public with adequate feelings of cathartic vindication. Whether a perpetrator is deemed "sane" or not factors into that heavily.
Sure, you can jump to the defense of this random guy, but by all accounts it sounds like he was just a sociopathic incel. Sometimes the guy everyone is saying is acting like a giant piece of shit asshole is in fact a giant piece of shit asshole and not some virtuous scrappy underdog.
BDS covers divesting from Israeli companies/companies with certain Israeli ties and not engaging with its bond markets. There is also a lot of software and technology transfer stuff between US universities and Israel. This House bill is stupid and hopefully dies in Senate.
Do you think that if he dies that suddenly his vote defaults to Republicans or something? For better or worse, Markey is still far more often on the right side of votes than not and Moulton fucking sucked shit through a plastic straw.
Schwartz was saving and distributing copies against the terms of the agreement by which he was able to access journals. What happened to him was heinous but it was pretty dissimilar to how models train on data. And the tormented material was Anthropic, which resulted in the largest copyright settlement in history. Because it was piracy. They briefly tried an argument that their intended use made it fair use, but...that's never how literally any of that worked.
Not that I disagree with your call for international pressure, but what is happening in the West Bank is genocide. Gaza gets a lot of attention for obvious reasons, but the genocide Israel is perpetrating is not against just Gazans--it's against all Palestinians and with clear ambition against all Levantine Arabs.
I don't think this is really all that surprising if you understand how diffusers actually work. They don't just draw contours and shit. They apply sequential transformations across a matrix of pixels in an iterative fashion, the transformation varies each iteration based on prompt embeddings and the surrounding pixels of each respective transformation, typically starting from a seed of arbitrary static. A lot of images share overwhelmingly identical techniques, with a tiny sliver being responsible for the truly creative deltas. Diffusers effectively learn techniques so it tracks that dropping singular training data here and there doesn't change much.
The majority of American Jews are not Zionists and a huge and growing portion of those are in fact anti-Zionist these days. Moreover, Jewish people have been at the forefront of almost every Palestinian solidarity movement in the US since before people started finally waking the fuck up in only the last couple of years to this century-long Zionist anti-Arab ethnostate horror project. And we will continue to do so even when we have to contend with pieces of shit like you with your shallow and feckless "solidarity" and sympathy at the same time.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like "the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy" it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class--absolutely capitalist class--business man I use.
This isn't terrible, but it's important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just "rich people" and the working class is not just "poor people." Capitalism is not defined by...whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that's why it inevitably degenerates into fascism--the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not "rich" people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it's clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
There is a yiddish saying that I've taken to saying to fascists and their enablers quite often lately. It begins with "May you illuminate the world like a bright chandelier," and concludes with, "hanging by day and burning by night."
I have prosecuted plenty of trademarks. The logos and words are separate trademarks. For the word mark alone, Supergiant and Supermassive absolutely are likely to raise an initial LOC rejection in the same exact class of goods and services. It boils down to whether the similar words are likely to leave a confusingly similar market impression upon consumers. I legit think here it would be hard to argue around with a typical examining attorney--but the trademark office has a ton more lattitude in grants than the patent office, so it isn't out of the question it could've been successfully argued or even granted initially.
It boils down to likelihood of confusion. I think there would be a legitimate concern here, tbh. But they could have come to an agreement when one registered their mark after the other one had already.
I've not seen the movie yet, but the comic it is based on is absolutely phenomenal and structured as a sort of myth telling exercise examining personal grief and effectively godhood. The villains are supposed to be one dimensional and incidental to Supergirl's story.
Yes, but they don't make news or to the top of lemmy for very long ever. Paizo is an example of a relatively established company that welcomed unionization. I'm sure there are others.
Yes, as the other commenter said, in most jurisdictions (i think China is the only exception?), generative AI outputs (this covers more than LLMs, like diffusers and other modern image generators) are not eligible for copyright. However, while a human made arrangement of the outputs gets copyright protection, in the US at least, it is a very narrow scope of protection, literally only a direct copy/paste of large swaths, and doesn't extend to the individual AI generated components.
In many, many significant ways, perpetual civil commitment (to an "institution") is far more horrific of a state than being in prison. People like you are incredibly fucking stupid.
The US justice system is explicitly punitive and not habilitative. That is why questions of "insanity" as it relates to culpability are critically important, for better or (largely) worse. This means that the outcome kf the process is not victim or even a perpetrator oriented--it is intended to provide the general shitass public with adequate feelings of cathartic vindication. Whether a perpetrator is deemed "sane" or not factors into that heavily.
Sure, you can jump to the defense of this random guy, but by all accounts it sounds like he was just a sociopathic incel. Sometimes the guy everyone is saying is acting like a giant piece of shit asshole is in fact a giant piece of shit asshole and not some virtuous scrappy underdog.
And how do you know the source for your "hit" isn't lying? You are not describing a trivially easy problem at all.
People need to understand that civil commitments are pretty fucking wild. They're effectively life imprisonment.
BDS covers divesting from Israeli companies/companies with certain Israeli ties and not engaging with its bond markets. There is also a lot of software and technology transfer stuff between US universities and Israel. This House bill is stupid and hopefully dies in Senate.
Do you think that if he dies that suddenly his vote defaults to Republicans or something? For better or worse, Markey is still far more often on the right side of votes than not and Moulton fucking sucked shit through a plastic straw.
Schwartz was saving and distributing copies against the terms of the agreement by which he was able to access journals. What happened to him was heinous but it was pretty dissimilar to how models train on data. And the tormented material was Anthropic, which resulted in the largest copyright settlement in history. Because it was piracy. They briefly tried an argument that their intended use made it fair use, but...that's never how literally any of that worked.
Not that I disagree with your call for international pressure, but what is happening in the West Bank is genocide. Gaza gets a lot of attention for obvious reasons, but the genocide Israel is perpetrating is not against just Gazans--it's against all Palestinians and with clear ambition against all Levantine Arabs.
I don't think this is really all that surprising if you understand how diffusers actually work. They don't just draw contours and shit. They apply sequential transformations across a matrix of pixels in an iterative fashion, the transformation varies each iteration based on prompt embeddings and the surrounding pixels of each respective transformation, typically starting from a seed of arbitrary static. A lot of images share overwhelmingly identical techniques, with a tiny sliver being responsible for the truly creative deltas. Diffusers effectively learn techniques so it tracks that dropping singular training data here and there doesn't change much.
The majority of American Jews are not Zionists and a huge and growing portion of those are in fact anti-Zionist these days. Moreover, Jewish people have been at the forefront of almost every Palestinian solidarity movement in the US since before people started finally waking the fuck up in only the last couple of years to this century-long Zionist anti-Arab ethnostate horror project. And we will continue to do so even when we have to contend with pieces of shit like you with your shallow and feckless "solidarity" and sympathy at the same time.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like "the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy" it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class--absolutely capitalist class--business man I use.
That is an effect, albeit an inevitable one, of capitalism-- not its defintion. I'm sure lemmy users remain disappointed in you as well.
This isn't terrible, but it's important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just "rich people" and the working class is not just "poor people." Capitalism is not defined by...whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that's why it inevitably degenerates into fascism--the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not "rich" people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it's clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
There is a yiddish saying that I've taken to saying to fascists and their enablers quite often lately. It begins with "May you illuminate the world like a bright chandelier," and concludes with, "hanging by day and burning by night."
I have prosecuted plenty of trademarks. The logos and words are separate trademarks. For the word mark alone, Supergiant and Supermassive absolutely are likely to raise an initial LOC rejection in the same exact class of goods and services. It boils down to whether the similar words are likely to leave a confusingly similar market impression upon consumers. I legit think here it would be hard to argue around with a typical examining attorney--but the trademark office has a ton more lattitude in grants than the patent office, so it isn't out of the question it could've been successfully argued or even granted initially.
It boils down to likelihood of confusion. I think there would be a legitimate concern here, tbh. But they could have come to an agreement when one registered their mark after the other one had already.
I've not seen the movie yet, but the comic it is based on is absolutely phenomenal and structured as a sort of myth telling exercise examining personal grief and effectively godhood. The villains are supposed to be one dimensional and incidental to Supergirl's story.
Yes, but they don't make news or to the top of lemmy for very long ever. Paizo is an example of a relatively established company that welcomed unionization. I'm sure there are others.
Yes, as the other commenter said, in most jurisdictions (i think China is the only exception?), generative AI outputs (this covers more than LLMs, like diffusers and other modern image generators) are not eligible for copyright. However, while a human made arrangement of the outputs gets copyright protection, in the US at least, it is a very narrow scope of protection, literally only a direct copy/paste of large swaths, and doesn't extend to the individual AI generated components.