“bad leaf! bad!” -scold vs. scald.

Just for fun. good comment!

gonna find some merry men and get a band going!

Where I was going was: effects can be different even if all choices and results are unethical. If one cares about the possible impacts of ones actions, consideration beyond “well it’s all unethical, so whatever” could be warranted.

are all unethical choices equal? Surely there are better and worse things?

nose hair trimmer attachment works well around the ears I’ve found (but it’s loud!)

cold cuts? Have you seen the price of a bag of chips? Ridiculous. I don’t need to spend 5 bucks to hate myself later after I’ve eaten too many.

$30 to buy an old mechanical pencil on ebay you remember having in highschool? No problemo.

I don’t think you can reply to a text message using a third party watch on iOS but you can with your Apple watch. I’ve seen that cited as an exclusive API.

Something is stopping another messaging app to have sms fallback and be the default messaging app on iOS. It’s iOS.

DOJ wants to get in on some of that hot euro DMA action

Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. A long time.

hypothetically cool, and very hypothetically legal

that’s a no on the cruciform for me, dawg. Yeesh. I’ll take everything else from there though, Poulsen, hawking drive, farcasters (maybe without the yoke of the AI techno core though), etc.

Is that not a compressed stream though? Genuinely asking. A 4k blu ray rip and a 4k stream from a service (or whatever it saves for offline viewing on an app) a pretty different. I think things are getting conflated with capturing live 4k television and capturing a 4k blu ray as it plays, which both might be using an HDMI cable.

How about some consent and payment for my info? Swingy peephole cover thing over the camera. Offer a discount if the machine can take a picture of you. Oh that’s right, it’s only worth something when you amass a ton of the data. 0.004 cents off isn’t that appealing is it?

It’s not just what sells, but who buys what. “Demographic X buys this one product more than others so how can we advertise this product to them where they will see it?” Growth is their “valid” reason, you know, like malignant cancer cells.

Absurdity indeed!

Like a kid with a restriction. 1 minute to comply or an hour to figure out how to technically comply but get around it.

It’s stupid but the article says why:

In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.” In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

I can’t believe I ever trusted consumer reports after I read up on how they purposely distorted their Suzuki samurai testing. The CR own record video shows they were determined to roll it.

I think the photocopying thing models fairly well with user licenses for software. Without commenting on whether that’s right in the grand scheme of things, I can see that as analogous. Most folks accept that they need individual user licenses for software right? I get that photocopying can’t be controlled the same way software can but the case was in the 90s? I mean these things aren’t about whether the provider of the article/software faces increased marginal cost for additional copies/users but that the user/company is getting more use than they paid for. License agreements. Seems like a problem with the terms of licenses and laws rather than how they were judged as following them or not. Their use didn’t seem to be transformative and the for profit nature of their use sort of overruled the “research” fair use.

I also think the mp3.com thing sucks, but again, the way the law is, that’s a reasonable/logical outcome. Same thing that will kill someone offering ebooks to people who show a proof of purchase.

I don’t know the solution to the situation with NYT/open AI. It’s a pretty bad look to be able to spit out an article nearly verbatim. We do need copyright reform, but I think that’s at the feet of the legislators, not judges. I only need to see the recent Alabama IVF court ruling to be reminded of the danger of more… interpretative rulings.