• 1 Post
  • 572 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle






  • Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

    Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

    I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

    If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

    Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

    The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

    What if it was for a car?

    I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.


  • Wasn’t the estimated delivery date much sooner when you first placed the order? Per Amazon’s stated policy, you should be eligible for refund three days after that date.

    Obviously it would be preferable for you to get it even sooner, but that’s still a lot better than two months from now.

    If you have an email or any record of the original estimated date, contact Amazon CS and reference that. Don’t even mention the changed delivery - that’s not your problem, as you didn’t agree to a changed delivery date; you were promised delivery three days ago and haven’t received it.




  • If you’re in the US, automatic is fine. Manuals make up like 1 percent of new cars and maybe 4% of used cars here. It doesn’t hurt to know how to drive one, but it doesn’t benefit you much, either. I drove a manual once, but it was a rental in another country. I’ve never been faced with needing to - or even having the opportunity to - drive a manual in the US.

    However, learning on a manual does make it easier to understand certain ways of how cars work, even on automatics (less so on CVTs), so if you like understanding things more, I recommend manual even in the US. You can still get that understanding driving automatics, though - just a bit more effort.

    Outside the US, most places I know of manual is the default. If manuals make up even 30 percent or so of cars where you live, I strongly suggest learning to drive one.







  • If your recommend protein intake is 70 grams per day (meaning you weigh about 195 pounds / 87 kg) and you’re only getting 20 grams per day, then you are likely already experiencing health issues.

    From https://www.verywellhealth.com/protein-deficiency-symptoms-8756264 you could expect to experience:

    • Weakness and fatigue, meaning you’ll feel exhausted - mentally, physically, or both
    • Skin, Hair, and Nail Problems
    • Mood changes, including the development of mood disorders, such as depression
    • Compromised immune system
    • Slowed wound healing
    • Decline in bone strength
    • Fatty liver
    • Weight loss due to your muscles and organs being broken down - but my understanding is this is mostly relevant if your overall caloric intake is quite low (starvation levels)
    • Weight gain due to fluid retention or increased hunger

    Not all of those are immediately noticeable.

    However, I’m with the other commenter who said that they think it’s likely that you’re under-estimating your daily protein intake. What method did you use for tracking and calculating it?




  • It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:

    Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

    • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
    • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
    • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
    • Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
    • Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
    • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
    • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
    • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.

    Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.