That's my fault then. I... inferred your position incorrectly. Solid position to take.

Ya, I read that comment by him as well. Fucking insanity.
At the same time, the current US Government is actively nationalizing private corporations, and applying threats-against-their-property to them in order to get them to do what it likes, and also doesn't seem to realize it.
It really feels to me like we're arguing (as a country) about what group of individuals and businesses we want to define as Aryan more so than whether or not it's wrong.

I think we're genuinely fucked.

It's just not quite right to call it a lossy copy, though.

Imagine you create a machine that reproduces an output.
You did this by iteratively modifying the internals of the machine until all of this machinery, with some correct starting state, would whiz and wurrr and output said output.
Let's say that output is a set of copyrighted lyrics.

Have you copied it? No, not really. You are however, reproducing it, and that is still protected by copyright law... but these things are being treated like they're a lossy copy- they're not. They're not even fucking close.

They are a machine that can produce anywhere from 0% to 100% loss based on its inputs, and the production cannot be separated from the inputs.

Now, in the simplest case- imagine my machine merely ROT13s every character input into it.
If I provide the correct state to cause that machine to produce lyrics, does that machine contain a lossy copy of the lyrics?

The reasoning here is getting absurd. The law needs to- and I have no idea how- be properly applied to this problem space.

OpenAI's argument may be quirky- but there's truth to not.
That isn't to imply that that's how the law should treat it- I think the law needs to be adjusted to take LLMs into account.

No output from an LLM is mathematically separated from its context window- i.e., the user input.
If we accept that they're a statistical model (they are), then we must accept that the user contributed to its production of the lyrics.
You *cannot* sever the output from the *precise* input that the user gave- they are mathematically linked via the attention mechanism.

Ya- the law, I don't think, can be applied easily to the output of statistical models that are fundamentally dependent on inputs like this. Any reading and application of it is going to be tortured.

I don't see the US flying C-17s or A400Ms to Donetsk any time soon. Sounds like a shitty way to start a world war.

But that's also kind of the problem- even in cases where we could press them into this kind of service, there are plenty of places where we simply can't.

Google lied to you. That is why you should turn off the AI blurb at the top. Google for how to do that.

A primer can be found here.
I'll quote it for you:

When trying to take a cheap shot at a group of people's ignorance, try to be less ignorant than the bogeyman of them you have constructed.

Capitalism does not imply the free market.
The free market implies the free market.
You can also refer to it as lassaiz faire capitalism.

Capitalism merely means private ownership of the means of production.
A fascist system, for example, is highly capitalist, and a very non-free market.

Credulous boomers that think it's 1950 and the people inside their teeve^H^H^H^H^Hcomputer are benign white folk like them.

What in the fucking hell are you blathering on about?

This is about a language extension that adds great quality-of-life to struct declarations.
If you think a language barrier is what holds systemd back from $any_non_linux_os, then you are so fucking out of your depth here that I assume you must have drowned hours ago, and the noise is just now reaching us.

There are many restrictions on root in a modern linux, as well.

Regurgitating BOFH mantra might sound bad ass, but it has never been reality.

Your messiah sounds like an idiot.

US here... It's exactly the same in the US. My condo is valued at ~$1300/ft^2 (~$12k/m^2)

We have plenty of minorities, but they're the kind of minorities that the racists like- the well-off ones.

That being said, every city has some section that's "The Projects". I've been to European cities. They're not inherently different in feel than US cities.
I suspect parent has never been in an actual city.

Eh, fair- but it should have been obvious what I meant from the context of the paragraph- non-Residential-private-citizen-usage.

No, because it's the producer that's engaging in the level of inefficiency- not the consumer.
You can argue that the consumer is vaguely aware that buying shit from China is terrible for the environment, but if you're trying to argue that CO2 isn't an externality, this is going to get amusing.

So, if I get this right, Americans are responsible for Chinese fueling their factories with coal. Is that correct?

I'm not blaming China for anything- I'm pointing out the complexity of the situation.
I said you can't simply say, "per-capita", because the picture is insanely more complicated than that.
Chinese per-capita usage is going to explode (it's already exploding) as more and more of their 85 year old pig farmers die and are replaced by people who actually use their electrical grid. You can't compare the Chinese population's personal energy usage with any first world country.
The average for all of China is just a little over 1.1kW constant load for each person.
Think about that.
While all Chinese people may be connected to the grid (or so I read), many are obviously not using power at all.

And still twice as bad as the Netherlands, and the EU on average? 5x worse than the Netherlands!

Why do you guys suck so bad?

Well, I said victim of violent crime, not murder ;)

Speaking of which, you're almost twice as likely to be murdered in London than to be killed by a car. You people have funny priorities.

The part you don't fucking get about any of this, is the cultures are different.
You have a safety culture. Every fucking square inch of your country is covered in CCTV cameras that the police can access without warrant.
That's not the culture we have.
If we wanted that culture- we'd have it.
Our culture is probably not for you, and your culture is very definitely not for us.
I thought this was settled back in 1781 when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, but who knows.

Your generalizations are stupid. The most dangerous state in the US for pedestrians is fucking New Mexico. It's not because of stroads.
Are stroads a good idea, or bad? Who knows- who's to say. There's arguments in either direction, but no strong evidence. But you call it objective. You need to pull your head out of your own ass, you limey fuck.

Incorrect.

No. Land owners that owned their mineral rights were able to lease them.

You're a fucking moron.

Educate yourself.
"Mineral rights can be severed from surface rights, meaning one party may own the land above, while another owns the resources below. This separation is common in oil- and gas-rich states like Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and North Dakota."

You fucking political ideologues are astonishingly ignorant of the things you have strong opinions on.

The environment doesn't care, of course.
Humans care. And that was made obvious in my example.

Per-capita is important to gauge- but people are not the majority of CO2 emissions. Industry is.
If you want to subtract all industrial CO2 emission, and then do a per-capita on what's left, then we can meaningfully compare "A Chinese Person's CO2" and "An American Person's CO2"
But once we do that, we also need to look at the value of the industry, because CO2 is universal, and we have a right to know what we're getting for that cost.
An MRI machine, or some GI Joe toys ironically made in China?
Pretending like the environment doesn't care about industry, but does care what polity some arbitrary division belongs to is laughably stupid.

You don't care about facts here- you a predecided belief, and you won't suffer it challenged.