It's not just merely about consuming copyrighted material. See, the problem is that the created image of Carlin is not parody or satire (which would be permissible.) It's an actual impersonation or theft of someone's likeness to create a derivative work. And that's not ok.

Not if there is a state after the individual.

Loose indicates a failure to secure them in place, or a failure to double-check post-installation. This can simply be accidental.

Missing means a) no one bothered to install (or criminally neglected to do so), and b) no one double-checked post-installation (also criminal negligence.)

Also, their net effects might not be the same. A loose bolt might or might not come off - it's an installation Russian roulette, and typically a function of incompetence.

A missing bolt, that's another level of negligence because the fault is absolutely visible and detectable. It's like leaving a loaded gun within a toddler's reach.

From techincal and legal reasons, these aren't comparable.

My dude, responsibility never ceases to exist. Top execs don't need to know every detail of what happens below them. They are supposed to delegate, and to have processes and procedures to govern and ensure things are bolted correctly.

And for industries as critical as aerospace (or medical equipment), this is even more important.

Top execs might not be culpable if something catastrophic happens on the floor, but they are responsible (and in some cases, legally liable.) This is specially true if it is not one single catastrophe but several occurring (for that indicates a systemic rot of values or procedures under their watch.)

But, if we do that, we lose the chance to launch dumb rants. It's slashdot, we live for the drama here, yo.

Now, I'm not advocating converting the Kernel. I am of the camp that thinks, "if it ain't broke, don't touch it." But the arguments made against C++ in 92 aren't applicable anymore. There might be other valid objections, but those will be pertinent to what technology is like in 2024.

I don't think you truly grasp the current technical impossibility of doing what you suggest, to create a persona from scratch, in particular one with its own brand of personality attributes (in this case, humor and its delivery.)

Nah, the troubles started long before the so-called push of "the message" (a claim popularized by Youtubers like "Critical Drinker"). It's the same problem plaguing the general super-hero franchises (MCU, DC.)

And the problem is due to excessive budget costs to create content rather than stories. A movie needs to make at least 3 times the budget to break even and recoup the investment. That's hard to do with films with budgets comparable to a small 3rd world country.

Compared that to movies like "Godzilla Minus One" with a budget of $15M. It only needs to make $45M to be a product-launching success. It is a lot easier to pull that off, even in a niche movie market, than with something costing a quarter billion dollars (in particular if it is yet another rehash of content, like Fast and the Furious XXII with an octogenarian Vin Diesel madly dashing on a walker)

This is very similar to product management in general, and software development in particular. Divide and conquer. Minimum viable product. Launch small and fail fast. Hollywood would do well creating small, one-time hits with moderate budgets.

Instead, we have a content glut. Not even a story glut, but a content glut anchored about stories retold, reimagined ed and deconstructed so much that people don't care to spend a lot of money on the movie theater. We have to watch the entire MCU crap to get an idea of what each movie is about and what the story is like.

We don't need that with discrete productions (of which any sequel could/should come organically, if at all.)

This is made worse by our glut for streaming content. That makes big-blockbuster movie productions a losing proposition for everyone, Disney included.

On top of that, most of these production companies jumped into the streaming business in order to create walled gardens without fully understanding the insane operational costs.

Disney launched its own crap, and for what? Disney does not produce enough content to justify running its own streaming platform. Unlike HBO (which produces TV series), it creates blockbusters, mostly for kids, the stuff I still buy on DVD to watch on discount at Walmart. The only time in recent memory that I subscribed to Disney was to watch "Andor", and that's it (and when the Mandalorian came out, to watch it with my kids.)

For most production companies, it is a better business model to license their products to other streaming services. Disney is learning the hard way.

The whole "sending the message" thing is real, but just incidental, and only a fractional (and more recent) reason. Disney's reasons for bleeding money are more complex than that.

And to pretend that it is because of ... "the message", that's "sending a message" onto itself.

Don't look for narratives (in particular narratives passed as informed opinions). Look for data and metrics instead (with a watchful eye for correlations vs relations.)

"I can't prove it, but I can say it." - Stephen Colbert

That still doesn't explain, let alone justify, the profiling of innocent customers. That's how you lose customers.

But we hear your rant, loud and clear. You do you, bo.

Dude, not even. How can you say there are "no malls anymore"? On what cornfed hole do you live?

I really wonder where you live.

Cool rant, bro. It has nothing to do with the specific technical problem discussed in the article.

Good for you. I have no clue how this is relevant to my post.

Any system with enough complexity (a human included) is required to tolerate a % of bad data. Depending on the task at hand, the margin of error will vary, however.

Tell me your requirements, and I might tell me the margin of error needed to efficiently meet those requirements.

I never made the claim that we require perfect input data. Only that we need to have a way to curate it.

These are two distinct propositions (from both technical and epistemological points of view.) I don't intend to engage in a debate where these two are conflated.