Seems like he’s saying they are. If they see something criminal on the phone then it’s not an unreasonable seizure.

The signing ensures the integrity of the data, whether using a public block chain or not.

The signed document can be distributed as widely as you’d like - it doesn’t need to be attached to a block chain to do this.

Sure, there’s always going to be outliers. Most people live and work in the same metropolitan area though - they’re not driving 50,000km+ a year. Besides, having a vehicle with 5 times the effective lifetime is going to be a big win regardless of how much you drive it.

Thanks!

I missed the site wide rules.

Yeah, that sort of rule requires a lot of faith in the moderators. Seems like they’re probably violating it themselves with their moderation.

Perhaps I don’t really understand - looking at the world news community on lemmy.ml rule 1 seems to be about only posting links to news articles. None of the things on the mod log screenshot look like news articles. Isn’t this the mods doing their jobs correctly?

The OP’s situation seems completely different to this and it’s definitely a problem - what am I missing about the rule 1 stuff though?

I’ve always heard them described as seagull managers. Screams loudly, shits everywhere, leaves.

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

The UNIX philosophy isn’t about having only one way to do things - it’s about being able to use tools together. The deliberately simple interface is what makes it so powerful - almost any existing too can become part of a pipeline. It’s adaptable.

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there’s nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.

I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?

Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

Braking does not increase range. Regenerative braking reduces the losses involved, it doesn’t eliminate them. Your last sentence makes it sounds like not braking enough will lower your range - that isn’t the case.

And then trying to hold the card issuer liable rather than your cousin…

I don’t think so. Those users had opted in to share information within a certain group. They’ve already accepted the risk of sharing info with someone who might be untrustworthy.

Plenty of other systems do the same thing. I can share the list of games on my Steam account with my friends - the fact that a hacker might break into one of their accounts and access my data doesn’t mean that this sharing of information is broken by design.

If you choose to share your secrets with someone, you accept the risk that they may not protect them as well as you do.

There may be other reasons to criticise 23andMe’s security, but this isn’t a broken design.

Exactly, so the use of “crash” would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.

“Accident” starts addressing intentions or expectations.

We could just add easily refer to them as “vehicular violence” but then we’d end up distorting things in another direction.

About 87% of the population in my country live in an urban environment, many of them will just have no idea how it is even just a few miles out of a city. There’s just no alternative to personal transportation, and bikes don’t cut it.

I’m still pretty much on board with the fuck cars crowd though - it’s bizarre to me that despite so many people living in our cities that our transit seems even worse than what the US has. It’s just so much nicer being in places with fewer cars around.

Plagiarism involves an extra act of deceit. You’re passing off someone else’s work as your own. It appears most people find this immoral.

Also, copyright is a monopoly on the publication of the work - piracy as it’s commonly used wouldn’t even be considered infringement.

Except that they’re not. NFTs take something that exists - like domain names - and injects unnecessary Blockchain bs. What added value does a Blockchain bring?