nymwit

Cool. Thanks. I can see it now. No, not really, just the pieces over time I've read on what wins fair use protections when challenged often talk about the interpretations involved and that profit making was generally seen as detracting from gaining fair use protections when the extent of the transformative nature was in question.

This mentions it, but of course it isn't data on what has been granted protections vs. denials of protection. Harvard counsel primer on copyright and fair use

Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are made in connection with content that is sold, ad-supported, or profit-making. When the use of a work is commercial, the user must show a greater degree of transformation (see below) in order to establish that it is fair.

I don't disagree with that statement. I'm having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

from your second link. I don't often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you're making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

"Oh, my God, that's disgusting! Software that makes naked pics online? Where? Where did they post those?"

Can you run games like this in a virtual machine? Would that eliminate kernel level general invasiveness concerns because it's a...virtual kernel I guess? Does that virtualization require too much overhead to run demanding games?

So just like shitty biased algorithms shouldn't be making life changing decisions on folks' employability, loan approvals, which areas get more/tougher policing, etc. I like stating obvious things, too. A robot pulling the trigger isn't the only "life-or-death" choice that will be (is!) automated.

Unless they really bury them in other regular features and make them indispensable, I don't care. I don't really see myself using the ones they've advertised so it won't bother me to not pay for them and for them not to be active. I get the distaste though, especially among this community with the preferences I've seen. That's perfectly valid. My own choice will be to not pay for any subscription for any AI type services. My Note 20 Ultra has served me well. I may bite on this one (flat screen woohoo!). I'll miss the SD card though.

Perhaps, but folks are still wriggling around trying to make it happen. That and this being more an AR/VR hybrid (XR they called it? barf) along with apple's usual polish (and ardent reality distortion field susceptible consumer base) could make a difference. Maybe. Also, dead can mean different things, no? There is a market for driving wheels and seats and such for racing games but it isn't widespread like having a playstation is. I wouldn't say driving peripherals were dead but just niche. That's probably covered with your "consumer" descriptor of VR vs. what might be called an enthusiast market though. I appreciate the casting of your opinion to posterity.

Watch out on those terms and conditions. Before long you'll have to pay more to unlock an ad free vision experience that was previously ad free. Or maybe their licensing deal with Pantone or dolby vision will lapse and your "only licensed" capabilities will go away. Or maybe your one eye just veers off and focuses on any nearby advertisement that's part of the manufacturer's partner program and you literally could not take your eye off it? Non-partner brands are blurry and hard to see? I once dreamed of futuristic technological advances outside the gravity well of all consuming capitalism. Those were the days I tell ya!

This bit of news made the rounds late October. It's cool but they go to lengths to, IMO, misrepresent the achievement. It took them 1.5 weeks to do this. It has a great big battery but they give the impression that you can drive more or less continuously from solar alone. No mention in any of the many articles you can read on this (they must all be sourced from the same press release or similar) about charging rates to charge the whole battery. The best you can see is on some of the articles they say cloud cover could impact range by 50km. At what sort of speeds that is based on is up to anyone's guess.

It took a month. The guardian article on this made the rounds a month or two ago. You just can't get enough via solar to run continuously. It has a big battery for sure. Charging rate is just super low.

Edit: please excuse me. 1.5 weeks, not a month.

Negotiation is a thing for sure. It is possible, though I haven't ever seen it implemented, that digital audio over USB-C or bluetooth can be blocked by DRM. It would seem business suicide to do something like limiting audio output to certain audio products but I wouldn't put it past any short term minded profit seeking enterprise.