Freenet is also based on middle-out compression.

No. Trying to push 30TB into Freenet will be interpreted as an attack on the network by other peers and they'll disconnect from your peer.

Freenet is better viewed as a communication medium than a storage medium. Data is prioritized according to demand, somewhat like an LRU cache. You can't upload 30TB and expect the network to preserve it for you.

On liability, running a Freenet peer is more like running network infrastructure that automatically routes and caches other people's traffic than intentionally publishing it. US law explicitly recognizes this distinction in the DMCA's provisions for transitory network communications and system caching. We discuss this in more detail in the FAQ.

You obviously haven't tried Freenet. You can join our room on River and you'll see no spam, no fraud, no hate speech, none of that.

Decentralized doesn't mean unmoderated. Systems built on Freenet can be moderated however their creators and communities want. River is moderated.

The difference is that nobody running one service gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to run.

Anything that wasn't action, drama, or comedy was largely dropped and almost all of the science was quick summary explanations.

Thanks for your questions, Freenet caches data but it isn’t meant to be a long-term storage network. It’s better to think of it as a communication system. Data persists as long as at least one node remains subscribed to it. If nobody subscribes (including the author), it will eventually disappear from the network. So yes, if only your node subscribes then the data will only exist there and won’t be available when your machine is offline. But if other nodes subscribe it will be replicated automatically and remain available even if your node goes offline.

Not from 2023, the linked video is from last month. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Alsup ruled that the scanning was format shifting and thus 'fair use'. Alsup ruled that their usage of downloaded works for training was 'fair use'. But Anthropic kept copies of downloaded works 'as a library' - including works they didn't use for the model training. Alsup ruled that that was not fair use. Alsup also said he would not delay the trial while Anthropic appealed (which is something that usually happens), hence why Anthropic settled.

There has long been copyright exemptions for 'fair use' - in particular 'transformative' applications where the end result doesn't resemble the source material. Essentially the fair use exemption for 'transformative' exactly matches this sort of scenario and should be a slam dunk win for the model creators.

It reduces neural inhibition. Normally the body limits strength to far from its maximum because maximum output has a high risk of injury (torn tendons, muscle tears), but the body can override the protection in emergencies (the annecdotes about mothers lifting cars, etc.)

Not sure what you are smoking, but the human brain is nowhere close to optimal. Just changing substrate would allow many orders of magnitude improvement. Biological brains depend on diffusion gradients, active transport pumps, and relatively large physical systems, and have to be incredibly redundant and robust to extreme noise. Also the vast majority of the brain isn't dedicated to intelligence.

Probably 10 order of magnitude improvements are available overall at a minimum.

It isn't replacing radiologists because it doesn't matter how much better than the radiologist the IA is, the radiologists control what the requirements are, and they will always ensure that a human radiologist has to do the 'final review'.

They could always trying pricing it less than real hamburger. It is priced like a luxury good, of course demand will be limited.

The watches are measuring 'heart rate variability' (HRV) not just 'heart rate'. And HRV is an superb measurement of physiological stress/training stress. The stress relevant for making decisions about workout intensity and recovery.