It does now. Whole jobs, departments, and even "industries" (ahem ESG) have been created around DEI.

Diversity can mean multiple viewpoints and inputs leading to a more complete (i.e. better) solution or product. It can also mean a niche viewpoint/need/requirement gets favored over one that would be beneficial to a much broader group. It's one of those things that is definitely helpful in the right context, but can also be harmful is the wrong context.

OTOH when you have a group of people with no connection to their customers you do get some ridiculous, and often hilarious, products. One fun example - nearly every woman's sneaker is actually based on the mold of a mans foot.

No, but the FDA can rule that your toothpaste doesn't follow the applicable laws and can no longer be sold. Look at crypto. Wild, wild west ... until it came to attention of various regulatory agencies and now there's lots of regulations.

The application of law across examples needs to be set in context. You're assuming 19th century French copyright law parallels modern global copyright...which seems rather unlikely but maybe you're an historian and know better.

Human brain 'storage' is also subject to one's perception ... such as that dress being gold and white (blue? what blue?!). That makes the process at least somewhat transformative and thus your expression in creating future works can be considered unique. (unless they're directly derivative of course)

OTOH song covers, while often being clearly unique from the original, are not considered original works under US copyright law and instead would be derivative works. (they do have a different, compulsory licensing process though) There's a vast body of legal nonsense on derivative works and how copyright applies.

In the case of generative AI, I'd posit that every work is directly derivative: 'averaging' some arbitrary number of image fragments to result in an output image/fragment is not uniquely and creatively transformative. The oversimplified and very bad car analogy - I can't make a blueprint for a car based on parts from 5 existing cars and then manufacture/sell that car myself. If you were to purchase those parts from the OEMs to assemble the car, you COULD sell that (somewhat paralleling compensation for original artists). but yah, bad analogy is bad :)

Yep. And if some content leaves one streaming provider for another you don't pay for ... you don't lose access.

A 2-bay NAS + VPN subscription is significantly cheaper than a year of the major streaming services combined.

The congressional hearing was definitely a trap set and sprung but they knew exactly what they were walking into. They were able to prep with any form of legal or other council they wished. They were like baby deer, lost in the headlights of a fast approaching semi truck, confused on what they could possible to to escape.

They could have just stood against antisemitism. They could have come on the side of free speech (and rewritten their policy). They could have even spoke in favor of Hamas and at least still appeared to have a spine.

At least the insanity of being canceled for unintentional microaggressions is coming back full circle.

You don't have to be nearly so overt.

Get a sign with "Science says XY = Male XX = Female" and you'd find yourself in trouble. Or possibly expelled.

The fact that three presidents of top colleges, knowing in advance the topic of the hearing, couldn't answer the question was a stunning failure. Honest, their unpreparedness and incompetence at the hearing alone should have been cause to fire them.

The fact that Gay astoundingly said 'when the speech crosses into conduct, then we take action' and wasn't instantly fired speaks to the pervasiveness of overt antisemitism. Especially given the many racial justice initiatives championed by Gay one has to question her motives and the legitimacy of her previous actions.

The plagiarism stuff is a red herring. I'm sure plenty of others in academia are guilty too but credentials are hardly relevant in the days of "un-grading" classes.

Are you saying all Muslims are terrorists? Some of them openly are, specifically over their beliefs in Islam...so tell us again how this homogeneous dogma thing works.

Stop ruining a good story with pesky facts. Obviously anyone on the UN payroll is beyond reproach and certainly would not be susceptible to religious or financial motivations causing them to act otherwise.

Amid all the outlandish accusations directed towards Israel, it's kind of astounding to see people utterly dismiss the idea that Hamas is using live babies as shields so they can use dead babies for propaganda.

Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians.

Hamas is deliberately HIDING BEHIND civilians - particularly women and children - while also equipping teenage "children" with guns and bombs to attach Israelis.

So, yes, when Hamas sees a 'safe zone' memo and moves weapons/fighters there ... they will get bombed. When terrorists tour around with reporters, those reporters get their share of HE deliveries. Hiding in your bubble of moral outrage to have a 'cause' that justifies supporting terrorism is the cognitive dissonance of the left in a nutshell.

Among any possible wrongs of Israel, this is not one. They're just the only country with both the ability and balls to pull it off.

To me it's shocking how FAR they're willing to stretching reality in their response. The hatred of jews is so specific, pervasive, and long-standing that racism towards them has it's very own word yet the same cult of "always racism" casually dismisses antisemitism.

This is the same group who, while simultaneously screaming for individual freedom of speech/religion/gender/sexuality/etc. AND canceling people over an off-hand comment in poor taste ... seems completely comfortable chanting the openly genocidal 'river to the sea' or antifada. Worse, they do so in support of a group that (among so many other things) regularly launches rockets towards civilians.

Computers and robots were going to replace most jobs from manufacturing to bookkeeping ... and yet here we are. :)

Of course not. They'd rather concentrate that money (in their own pockets) then use it effectively to provide for the non-wealthy.