I may be extrapolating too much, but it seems there is something wrong in Sony's corporate values. I have their flagship headphones, and they are annoying AF. They are full of annoying and very loud audio prompts, most of which can't be turned off. They don't respect my phone's silent mode. They ring when I need to not be disturbed, for example when I'm sleeping. Customers complain about this. They contact customer service asking for solutions. They return newly purchased headphones.

Most companies drink their own kool-aid, but they don't ignore customer desires to the extent of actively pissing them off (even spending more money to piss their customers off by developing unwanted features).

In nuclear deterrence, it can be helpful to seem a little crazy. You want to tread more lightly with a country if you think it has its finger on the button. Imagine how much more lightly you would tread if you couldn't fathom the mind or decision making process that determined whether a nuclear strike was launched.

It certainly needs more analysis, but this strategy seems compelling enough that countries may even claim AIs control their nukes regardless of whether it's true. Of course the US doesn't want anybody to adopt this strategy, because you don't need to seem like a crazy fucker when you're already the biggest guy around.

There are two issues here. First, one only needs to avoid destroying it it's obviously evidence. I don't think they even need to keep it--a letter could get lost--but they cannot destroy it. The second matter, interpreting jokes as though they were evidence (and bringing up any other BS that's not relevant to the case or is not strictly true), is a problem that I suspect is endemic to any adversarial justice system. It's shameful.

1. If Israel surrendered it would be slaughtered. You have to realize that's what Hamas is already trying to do. If not, read their stated mission. They just haven't been very good at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2. What hostages? Whether you are referring to POWs, Arab citizens of Israel, or the Palestinian settlements, this is a false frame. Unless you have access to some information I don't, Israel doesn't have hostages.

3. Is Israel's leadership wanted for any crimes? Who has accused them except armchair politicians on the internet and kids on campuses?

FYI I don't think you are arguing in good faith since real concerns shouldn't be so easy to rebut. Or perhaps you've never really thought about what you are saying--you haven't had the honest argument with yourself that leads to firmer and more correct opinions.

I think you must have misspoken there. It sounds like you said there was not a carnival of torture and murder with kidnapping of noncombatants. If that's what you meant, this discussion is over.

I never even heard those things until now, so this is a straw man if I've ever seen one.

The Hamas fighters are in tunnels under buildings like hospitals. You can't precision-target a tunnel under a densely populated city. Hamas designed the conflict to have maximum collateral damage. It's unavoidable. (If you don't believe that, what is the purpose of a human shield?)

Regarding the population mostly not having voted for Hamas, that may be true, but polls show they support the carnival of rape and torture they perpetrated on Israel: https://www.reuters.com/world/...

Also, they killed people in the most painful ways they could imagine. They cut a fetus out of its mother's womb. Do you think those were isolated cases? What are you doing defending them? You should be horrified.

Release the hostages! That's the only complaint anybody should be making. Israel has its hands tied, as they can't/shouldn't just let their people be kept as slaves. On the other hand Hamas could end the war tomorrow by releasing the hostages and accepting terms (probably including giving up its tunnels and submitting its war criminals for tribunal).

Thanks for explaining that. It sounds like the other direction for improved lossy compression is to make the compression less coupled with the data simplification?. That way an image can be re-saved (even if cropped) and not take additional space, so long as lossy optimizations aren't reapplied. (Lossy optimization followed by lossless compression, or at least compression such that `decompress(compress(data))` is as compressible as `data` without needing the lossy step to be reapplied.)

Forgive me if I'm far from the mark, but I've been wondering about a claim I read that heic had less inter-generational loss than jpeg, and had wondered how that could be true, though my field isn't graphics. That question might be an amusing challenge for the "explain like I'm five" forum on Reddit.

Thanks. So lossless compression. Have we figured out how to do that in a way that's useful? I mean the status quo is (or should be) that we lossily encode images only when we need them smaller or we modify them. Assuming (in the case of image modification) storing/serving the original plus layers of vector modifications isn't computationally friendly, what's the alternative to generational loss?

What does lossless transcoding mean in this context? Do you mean it should be able to store existing jpeg data without reencoding?

What?? No. Copyright limits distribution and derivative works, not reading. Do you think publishers like you going to the library and borrowing books? They have no legal grounds to stop it. And if you read all day in a bookshop, they can ask you to leave (and you will be trespassing after that), but there is no permission to read copyrighted works that could be revoked.

I may be wrong about subtle details, or have simplified, but I had to correct such a strongly worded misconception. Copyright does not prohibit someone from reading protected works.

You didn't reply to my point at all, but I realize I may not have been clear about a crucial implication. You said creators deserve to be supported (in particular, before they transfer their work). But they also can't sell/lease/trade their work unless the buyer is treated the same as the creator, because the sale value would be zero. It seems like you aren't engaging with my argument directly because you think the creator should be supported, the creator should be able to sell the work, yet the companies that buy it don't deserve the same treatment as the creator. The numbers don't add up.

That seems strange to me, because of the equivalence between different kinds of payments. (At the end of the day, every kind of income stream is traded and sold.)

Let's say my family can't handle ups and downs so I contract to receive a constant monthly payment in exchange for giving all my royalties each month to a company. Should this mean it's okay to pirate the work?

Let's say I have a financial emergency so I contract to receive a lump sum in exchange for giving all my royalties each month to a company. Should this mean it's okay to pirate the work?

Let's say I have a financial emergency so I contract to sell the rights to my work, so all royalties will go to the company. Should this mean it's okay to pirate the work?

What's different about all these situations, versus if I'm single or rich and don't need to swap or sell any rights?

IMO it's not basic unless and until you can tell me what does imply causation. Hint: it's not Bayes' Theorem, since that implies a result but says nothing about causation. It also has no bearing on past events that need to be explained.

But still, correlation can't be taken to mean causation has been observed. Positive covid tests don't cause covid, babies bumping their heads don't cause crying babies, etc. Oh wait.

(Snark aside, I would genuinely appreciate any insight anyone can share about what is the current understanding of causation. Is there one unified explanation or are their multiple schools of thought? What does a clear explanation of causation even look like?)

His name is Ashlee Vance, and based on this article, he burns his sources. Not to be trusted in the future.