Precisely. Fuckerberg is a nazi who bans people for posting links to the British Holocaust Memorial Day Fund, he's a Nazi and his whole fakeass trash site needs to die. I'm 100% sure that they're actually going to USE these videos to train their shitty AI products.

Stupid people use the word "subsidy" like it's a free lunch because they don't understand how anything works.

Um, OK TDSbot. Musk is a very good person who has done more for free speech and the future of Earth than anyone else alive today.

The people who call him "Nazi" are the awful human beings. And stupid.

While what you say may be true for state and local law enforcement, it is not true for federal law enforcement.

https://www.mololamken.com/kno...

"Under Section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States."

Actual text of the code:

https://uscode.house.gov/view....

"Â1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years."

This is the statute under which Martha Stewart was sentenced to federal prison.

https://www.nyccriminalattorne...

"The interview isn't about solving the crime they're investigating. It's about creating a new one. When federal agents can't prove the underlying offense, they charge you with lying about it. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading - she was convicted of lying to investigators about insider trading she was never found guilty of. The crime she went to prison for was created in the interview room. This is the federal playbook: investigate one thing, charge another. The conversation itself becomes the crime.

18 USC 1001 makes it a federal felony to make false statements to government agents. Five years in federal prison. $250,000 in fines. No oath required. You don't have to be in a formal interview room. You don't have to sign anything. A casual conversation on your front porch counts. Any federal matter, any federal agent, anywhere. And here's what nobody tells you: the agents asking questions usually already know the answers. They're not asking to learn what happened. They're testing whether you'll tell the truth."

I am also not a lawyer, so your mileage may vary.

I bought a Ford F-150 XLT (the full-hybrid pickup) and was very disappointed to find that several of the features (Including Blue Cruise and navigation) were subscription-based with an initial free period of a year or so.

Other than that the vehicle is fantastic - but was very pricey when I bought it, so having to pay over and over for the features was a very annoying surprise. (They quit working rather than quit updating when the subscriptions run out.)

... a bunch of cancer progression theories based on cell culture progression had to be thrown out when it was discovered that the cultures were being contaminated by a particularly robust and aggressive cancer cell culture, HeLa, which had contaminated lab equipment like environmental chambers or survived equipment sterilization and eventually took over culture lines in labs.

Just delete yourself, PDFile Trash Fred.

The reason Anthropic settled is to avoid setting a court precedent. That's the answer. "Pay some money, cost of doing business" while everyone's rights die.

Thanks for the heads up.

Have you tried setting up something like a whitelist (see below)? I feel like that would make my life a lot better - just having a process that filters out the obvious SEO sites so that I don't have to do it.

https://github.com/searxng/sea...

Two words:

Parallel construction.

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

"An example from one official about how parallel construction tips work is being told by Special Operations Division that: "Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle." DEA would alert state troopers and they may wait for that certain vehicle and use drug searching dogs to identify illegal drug-related activity, giving the appearance the search was conducted randomly.[4] "

This example also would be a form of evidence laundering. By the time the case is presented to courts, the fact that this all resulted from a warrantless search would be nowhere to be found.

Yup, not a great example.

I was speaking generally about the EU's protectionist approach to competition. This probably wasn't the best post to leave this comment on.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/07...

"The payout will deliver $3,000 per work across an estimated 500,000 works, shared among the authors and publishers who hold rights to them. While the settlement is believed to be the largest in the history of U.S. copyright law, many authors and creators still donâ(TM)t view it as a win.

Thatâ(TM)s because of how the legal question was resolved. Alsup sided with Anthropic on the core issue. He ruled that training an AI model on copyrighted text counts as fair use â" a decision widely seen as a turning point for the AI industry. But the ruling didnâ(TM)t excuse how Anthropic obtained the books in the first place. Anthropic had built its training library from two sources: books it purchased and scanned (fine), and books it downloaded from pirate sites like Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. Alsup found the second method illegal on its own terms and said that piracy question could go to trial; Anthropic agreed to a settlement soon after to avoid a trial and whatever damages a jury might have awarded."

So... it's legal to scan books you own and then use them to train LLMs, but it's not legal to use scans that someone else made (I'll assume in this case, they didn't own the books in question.) Hence... the perverse incentive to buy and re-scan books that might already have been scanned... and the cheapest way of doing it is to chop the spine off.

"Internal Anthropic documents about its plan to scan millions of books, revealed in the copyright lawsuit, donâ(TM)t make clear why the company wanted to destroy the books in the process. A deposition of Tom Harvey, who Anthropic hired to lead the project and who previously helped create Google Books, shows that one company Anthropic contracted to scan the books was Datamation, which offers both âoehigh volume destructive and non-destructive book scanningâ services. In a destructive book scanning process, the spine of the book is cut so the pages can be fed into a scanning machine, which is faster and cheaper than non-destructive book scanning.

Regardless of its original intentions, the federal judge in the copyright lawsuit from authors against Anthropic, William Alsup, found that Anthropicâ(TM)s creation of digital copies of the books was legal specifically because the books were destroyed.

âoeHere, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy,â Alsup wrote in his ruling. âoeThe print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company.â "

Kind of fucked up that the scan can't be shared (or donated). I imagine in most cases, good copies of these books no longer exist in libraries or in the Library of Congress. With current law, all books that are covered under copyright will eventually fall into the public domain, but this is meaningless unless copies exist for people to redistribute once that limit is reached. Essentially companies are exploiting the monopoly benefit extended through copyright without allowing society to benefit from the material falling into the public domain, which is the implicit contract to using state power to enforce copyright.

Ironically, destroying physical copies in order to comply with the 1:1 rule makes the remaining copies that much more valuable.

My experience thus far with the various LLM chatbots is that they've all been trained with the default idea that users want to one-shot solutions.

A human in a similar situation normally would ask questions to clarify the problem, and attempt to ascertain the level of domain knowledge so that they can intelligently communicate.

Part of the song and dance in forming a prompt is to pre-load the model with all those items, so that you don't burn an obscene amount of tokens for it to finally get to the point where it can be useful. An open ended query can be useful for discovery but only if you're willing to do the legwork to cross-reference against other models and reference material.

To put it another way... most humans are lazy and just want to put in the minimum of work, and are willing to accept a 60% acceptable answer from a bot (basically using it as a search engine replacement). Add the fact that most humans are not domain experts, nor are they able or willing to educate themselves to a minimum standard, they have no way of judging whether the bot answer is even at the 60% standard - instead they do what most people do... if it sounds good, and the bot claims to be an "expert", then they go with that.

I anticipate that models specifically curated for specific domains will become more and more useful. I've seen models plugged into residential and commercial electrical code, for example, to act as an always available code compliance helper for a specific municipality. And, as you point out, as long as you can look up the relevant section of code to verify that the LLM supplied advice is correct, and do the load calculations to make sure the math is correct, you can validate the LLM's answer.

They can just not pay, then, but I imagine they won't be able to do business until they change their name. This is China we're talking about.