Yes, quite probably. But the Japanese people were (and still are) proud. Their military at the time saw surrender as a disgrace. They saw more honour in death than in defeat. That's what explains the kamikaze pilots, and the soldiers charging to their deaths yelling tennoheika banzai ("Long live the Emperor").

Careful. I'm trying to do no such thing, and have given you no reason to think I am. All I'm doing is pointing out that the USA has no reason to seek more "payback" from Japan. IMHO they already got enough. And even the thought (per dfarrow, the OP) of doing so by using copyrighted material without permission is just feeble.

I think the Japanese cabinet minister merely misspoke, without understanding the meaning of "fair use" in the USA.

Japan doesn't call it "fair use" but rather grants exceptions to copyright protections in highly specific situations. Basically it's apples and oranges. Too much detail to cover here, and I'm no expert, just someone who can read what Google Gemini tells me.

Total US casualties at the hand of Japan during World War II came to about 406,000, of which the majority were military personnel.

Total Japanese casualties at the hand of the USA were about 2.1 to 3.1 million, of which about 800,000 to 1 million were civilians.

So, it seems the USA got enough "payback" from Japan already during WW II, and then some.

None of which apply to the US government's current use of these memes. They're using them to express their own geopolitical stances.

The Japanese rights-holders have a strong case against the US government for copyright infringement. The US government's use of the memes doesn't qualify as fair use.

On the other hand, suing the US government is not an easy task. The US government can claim sovereign immunity, or "allow" themselves to be sued under various acts of Congress. Not to mention there is potential diplomatic harm to the US-Japan relationship.

In short, the Japanese rights-holders do have a case, but obtaining satisfaction would be messy. That's why they're using the public forum to complain about the US government's actions.

Covered under fireworks.

Actually, that conclusion is borne out from research by criminologists. They widely conclude that what deters criminal behavior is not the punishment for it, but the fear of getting caught.

In 1976, Canada abolished capital punishment officially. In the decades that followed, the murder rate went down steadily.

Actually, it is people. That includes:

- careless debris burning;
- machines and vehicles;
- power lines;
- unattended or poorly-extinguished campfires;
- smoking and fireworks;
- and yes, arson.

Of these, the first one (debris burning) is the most common human cause.

You're right, this is not insider trading. Insider trading is legal. Employees at publically-traded companies, including those in the C-suite, perform insider trades frequently.

What is not legal is trading on insider information. Insider information is information known before the general public knows it.

It does not matter if the time-interval between private and public knowledge of the information is only milliseconds. The point is that the recipients of this information have enough time to act on it before everyone else can. And that makes it trading on insider information. And that makes it illegal.

Trade secrets are protected by law. You can't take them with you when you leave an employer. However, you can take with you your skills and knowledge.

How the courts make the distinction comes down to evaluation of various factors, such as whether the idea is valuable, whether it is not easily repeated, whether a company invested effort in developing it, whether a company took steps to protect it from public release, and so on.

"By definition?" No, I don't think that's the case. Undocumented immigrants lack immigration documents, not necessarily identity documents.

And presumably undocumented immigrants would need to present whatever identification documents they have when they check into a hotel, whether the tab is on Uncle Sam or not.

To be fair, any place where cables are joined by a device is a potential attack-point. But it seems to me that it ought to be easy to detect a malicious device. After all, doesn't it have to "phone home" or output suspicious data that wasn't fed into it (e.g., viruses?)

Data-signals travel in fiber-optic cables at the speed of light ... in optical fibers. That's about 67% of the speed of light in vacuum.

Electrical signals in wires travel somewhere between 50% and 99% of the speed of light in vacuum, depending on wire thickness and geometry, and insulation.

Fiber-optic cables have many advantages over electrical wires, but speed of the signal is not really one of them. There are others, such as higher bandwidth, easier multiplexing, longer travel distances without boosting, no electrical interference, and incresed security (harder to wiretap.)

...I would not want to hire thieves. They're just as likely to steal from you as from their previous employer. Not saying OpenAI necessarily wouldn't, just that I wouldn't.

Let discovery take its course. If there's any there there, we'll find out what it is.

I did some googling and came up with this:

- In the USA and in Canada, hotels are required by law to keep records of their guests' identities;
- in Canada, law enforcement may obtain this information with a warrant;
- in the USA, a warrant may not be required, depending on jurisdiction.

Other countries generally have policies that resemble either of the above.

Countries spy on each other even during times of peace.

Did you have a point?