I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

Perhaps it's time to zone farmland as farmland and forbid it from being used for anything else without regulatory review.

That's been the process for the last 80 to 100 years. The reason so many of our cities are nevertheless built over farmland is because what can be zoned, can be re-zoned, which is generally what happens when the difference between the value of the land for agriculture vs development becomes too great.

None of which has the least to do with AI in particular. Some people have always chosen not to sell their land for development.

Here's a case in which Disney chased a piece of farmland for around 40 years before getting it:

https://www.sfgate.com/disneyl...

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.

As a lifelong cyclist, I agree in principle. The problem is over the last seventy-five years we have rearchitected the very geographic fabric of society to make *solving* our transportation problems with bike and public transit impossible.

Before WW2, Dad would leave the apartment and walk or take a trolley to work (usually in the same city neighborhood) while Ma "kept house" -- managed cooking, clearning, childcare, and the family's community and social engagement. In the 1950s and 60s, instead of an apartment, it'd be a suburban house. Ma would drop Pa off at the kiss and ride.

Today Mom and Dad both have jobs they have to get to, usually in *different* suburban employment areas; they can locate to make the commute easy for one, but they keep changing jobs every couple of years while their long-term wealth is being put into a geographically fixed asset: their house. They are financially anchored to their house as their jobs move around the region.

Car-dependency is baked into the very fabric of society, in a way you can't fix with transportation policy or projects--not without decades of projects. But we have reached the limits of the car-dependency model; we can't fix traffic by adding marginal car capacity as has been repeatedly demonstrated by freeway projects that fail to fix traffic because we're in an equillibrium between commute times and job selection.

Transit and bike infrastructure won't fix this, but they *can* make marginal improvements in the traffic situation by taking cars off the road for the minority of people who can use these alternatives at this particular point in their lives. I think e-bikes are going to be key. I personally wouldn't consider a ten mile commute by bike on roads shared with cars a barrier to commuting by bike, but most people wouldn't attempt it. E-bikes on bike infrastructure can make a ten mile commute practical for *normal* people, and take a significant number of cars off congested roads. Public transit could help, but again in a marginal, opportunistic way. In Europe or the US Northeast where car-dependency was overlaid on existing dense urban fabrics, there's a lot of opportunity for major transit projects. But for American cities in the West which have *no* center of mass to build around, solving car-dependency is likely a Moon-shot level project.

"Burden Foreign Countries with Slop"

Well, that's one hypothesis. However since they saw a significant difference in the population where the social media apps were removed, then if your hypothesis is true, the data would suggest that delivering the service as a native app rather than a web app must have some harmful effect in itself. An alternative hypothesis is that their application usage patterns changed when the apps were removed.

It's not altogether far fetched that web-delivered apps have a different psychological effect than native smartphone apps, because native smartphone apps have greater access to the system for tracking and notifications. Native apps also offer different features than their web versions. This is why I use Facebook via a browser, because the Facebook native app is insufferably intrusive, constantly trying to get your attention. It means, however, I can't use Facebook's chat function.

From hating gay people and molesting children

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You have to draw the line somewhere. Can I hire a taxi to drive me to the airport without being financially liable for life if the driver has a heart attack or can't find another fare to pick up after I'm done with them?

We're just endlessly alternating between stories accusing AI of taking all the jobs, and studies 'proving' AI doesn't produce anything.

LSD is being studied for medicinal effects (and has been for a looooong time) and Marijuana is outright legalized anyways - or at least can be approved for medical use - in the majority of the US. Some see some beneficial effect but if they were miracle drugs we would know by now. A big new study on microdosing came out just a couple weeks ago, finding only a little benefit unfortunately.

https://www.wired.com/story/mi...

It can be argued. But in any case, at present the US does not have a Department of War. It has a Department of Defense. Hegseth playing along with the President to call it something else does not change that.

Slashdot comments on the issue of IP have certainly changed, but then again napster never threatened a post-truth world.

This particular AI fake is really of the less offensive variety. It shows two actors portrayed in a manner that is typical for them. And even when getting the big paychecks they still use CGI. Whereas the existence of factual / political fakery is really problematic. And then there's "non-consensual intimate imagery."

Are the stealing the style or the specific characters? I know trademark can protect the former in some circumstances, but this Cruise / Pitt video certainly passes the second line as well.

yes the whole scene is very much one that occur in a real film. Just not without paying a whole lot of $$$

And if it does happen, I suspect the AI's prediction of heightening will be prescient : )