A few points:
1) maybe you didn't follow my argument: that's why it's farcical to believe that these companies are wasting money buying/destroying them when they are digitally available. Why would they waste $$ they don't have to?

2) FWIW, that's the 1901 edition, the 1915 3rd ed was (as the author says) largely rewritten with updated information not available for the 1901.

3) Do you realize your comment is literally justifying scanning and preserving books that aren't yet available?

Isn't there a clear bright line of liability here?
If the hugging face event cost hugging face (hypothetically) $250,000 to fix, how is the ai creator not instantly on the hook for a multiple of those damages?

It feels like we should quickly establish say a 10x multiplier as standard penalty for ai caused damages.

I know it's a shitty post facto tool and yes, it has failed plenty of times, but product liability is a well-precedented path (ie no new law approach has to be created) to compelling corporate responsibility. If this were the case, even a trillion dollar market value would feel shallow compared to potential liabilities.

Someone please name one rare, valuable book that has been destroyed. I'm still waiting.

Nobody has answered my criticisms of this particular Frankenstein story:
1) there's essentially nothing IN rare books that LLMs benefit from
2) rare old books are difficult to ocr in the first place, when reprints are both easier to scan AND cheaper.

This entire contrived hysteria is even more amusing as people basically don't read anymore, not generally. Oh heavens! They're destroying the books NOBODY READS? Really? That's what you're weeping about?

The only remaining meaningful contemporary book sales are women reading their own particular flavor of smut.
https://www.pensandpoison.org/...

Less than half of adults say they've read ONE BOOK in the last year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

I love old books. I'm currently reading Rogers 3rd ed (1915) of A History of Babylonia and Assyria and it's delightful. An absolute pleasure to read from the skill of the author, the comprehensiveness of the information (without a tedious agenda to flog, imagine!), to the very tactile experience of leather bound, deckle-edged paper. A joy every minute I'm reading it.

I would genuinely join you if there truly was a threat against old books.
But this? This is a manipulated hysteria contrived for some reason, maybe an experiment to see if they could spur nearly-illiterate sheeple to rise up to 'save' something they absolutely care nothing about.

That's literally what I said, you dumb pillock.

The fact that Canada is insisting on their right to propagandize their own populace doesn't change that it's propaganda.
Of COURSE it's still 'soft power', even if the target is their own disaffected population.

Duh?

You mean the site whose water discharge processes were indeed certified shortly after that article in 2025?

https://www.faa.gov/media/9434...

Water discharge is covered in section 3.2.7, fyi.

"why (is) the U.S. government is so invested in the issue?"

Claiming it's 'perhaps' about the US wanting power to project US culture...as a way to deflect from Canada ACTUALLY OPENLY AND CLEARLY DOING THAT is propaganda-judo at Iraqi-information-minister level.

Even *asking* the question is hilariously obvious. So Canada is entitled to use its streaming channels to promulgate Brand Canada (and their obligatory Francophone appendix, always...) but the US is quasi imperialist - not for demanding the right to do so, just interfering with Canada's 'right' to do so.

And offering some sappy Ontario postdoc as the "quoted expert" instead of, say, an actual Canadian gov't official to defend their overt policy is even funnier.

And before the nabobs come chattering into the conversation, yes, OF COURSE the US promotes itself in media and indeed that is soft-power, but let's be clear here that the US isn't asking for the right to do so, just that Canada NOT do so. And oh, when's the last time you saw the majority of US media (incl Hollywood, to look at the bastion of American cultural power) saying /nice/ things about the US?

Except:
A) we are talking about sea temps 10m below the surface across a global data set. Some Enlightenment polymaths taking readings with their home made thermometers in Europe wouldn't impact that data set at all.
B) "guestimates" would be hilarious to include in a conclusion being reached based on HUNDREDTHS of a degree (0.10 vs 0.09)

My supposition would be this is modem data only, eg since the 1990s MAYBE.

Linkedin (like Facebook) has evolved to one of those sites that it feels like the digital equivalent of shopping a wet-market in Wuhan.

On the one hand, ai is indeed getting better at writing banal fluff pieces that fill the Internet.

On the other, human writing is growing so awful in both subject and quality (this morning's bbc contains an article where one of their interns sprightly explains she's been able to train her self to wake without an alarm clock, golly!) that little of value is being supplanted.

Hell, I expect an ai editor of slashdot would post fewer dupes and likely be better at summarizing the point rather than cnp'ing whole 1000-word articles for the front page.

I can't see any point to this other than providing LinkedIn ai training data.

  I *want* ai to keep clearly sounding like fucking ai (although, being honest, I can't think of a single post on LinkedIn that didn't sound like it was written by a robot, ever).

Oh, so you don't have kids.
Parents don't get the luxury of "giving up" because it's too much work that might be wasted anyway.

I don't disagree with you that they probably WILL see stuff on the internet but... the reality is that most kids are what ~8bn people would call normal and aside from "your team" pushing trans propaganda like this, will NEVER SEEK IT OUT because most people find it gross. So while they absolutely will see sexual subjects on the web, likely it's normalizing, not degenerate. Which is why the trans-propaganda campaign is working so hard, it's an uphill fight against young people's normal inclinations, you need to 'get them while they're young' to try to move the frame of acceptability. We see it, we understand it, and we (& they) reject it.

Sorry for your loss. Hey, at least you have apparently legions of political sheep willing to sacrifice their children for your ideology.

Your opinion has been filed appropriately.

Insofar as you're being honest about being a libertarian, I genuinely apologize.

Hairsplitting semantics and pretending not to understand idiom are such standard leftist tactics, I admit, I presumed.

To your point, then: Auschwitz was legal, according to German Criminal Codes in 1942. So... to you, not "murder"? Yes, I think this is a stupid point to make and a stupid argument, but you seemed to assert a narrowly-defined concept of murder, just seeing how far you're willing to go? If you are consistent, and affirm that being legal, the Holocaust wasn't murder, I guess you ... win? I would absolutely concede the point.

Do you believe children should be exposed in any way to adult sexuality?
Particularly hypersexualized dancers with sexually suggestive names, acts, gestures, themes?

The fact that you're even asking suggests you're either
- deeply disingenuous or
- a pedo yourself

The answer, in case you're searching for it? It's NO. Just LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. They don't need to be groomed, thanks.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

"....The performer in drag was none other than the president of the PTA at P.S. 96., Frankie Quinones. Video shot by Morales shows him twirling and gyrating to a song by '80s Puerto Rican performer Iris Chacon.

On an event flyer, the drag show was only billed as a âoeSpecial Surprise Performance!â

Morales questioned what organizers were thinking.

âoeHe got on all fours on the choir stand, he laid on his back, raised his legs, opened his legs wide open. What made you in your head think that was appropriate for elementary school students?â Morales said."

I didn't care what adults do to/with each other, not even faintly but I draw the line at degeneracy with children and kinks that involve them. Even (shudder) with their parents enthusiastic consent.

If it's just about representation and being seen, why aren't they lobbying to dance in front of the elderly?

Thank you, I appreciate your post.
Next time I need to demonstrate to someone
- how the Left seems to treat words like magical spells
- how they like to pretend they don't understand something
- how slashdot has been ideologically captured .... Now I have a single, succinct post to show them. Very neat.