Then why haven't disney released them? They should know they'll print money with them. I wonder if a stipulation was made that they wouldn't be released.

I could imagine one day they would couple it with gait analysis. if they ever capture the person without a mask, they could use gait analysis to match them.

Hmm, but given her profession and what she has access to, maybe there has to be constraints. Say she was doing other gain of function self-experiments that could somehow pose a danger to others? Probably unlikely, I dunno, but I'm not sure if all constraints should go out the window. I still think what she did was brave, and shouldn't have the info suppressed. We should learn what we can from it.

the judge also said:

"The judge said the FTX case is probably the greatest financial fraud perpetrated in the history of the U.S., and because of that a “literal get-out-of-jail-free card I can’t agree to,” Kaplan said in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, where Ellison’s parents and two sisters looked on from the courtroom’s gallery"

Even with full compliance her getting two years is a laughable joke.

Luke I am your father isn't a better line, it's just including Luke helps recognize the source.

repeating my previous comment. that has already happened. well there have been numerous delays, including US unions saying they should do all the work, while tsmc wants to bring in their people to get it done with their expertise, but they can't get the visas approved. so it's been a shit show.

that has already happened. well there have been numerous delays, including US unions saying they should do all the work, while tsmc wants to bring in their people to get it done with their expertise, but they can't get the visas approved. so it's been a shit show.

but there's only a surplus of people because they're still suffering, but as they become a developed country down their fertility rate will go as well, and all the developed countries are showing no signs of their fertility rate bottoming. immigration might be good for the country's economy, but if your citizens stop having children that's probably a sign that something is not working.

If you and I make plans to plant a bomb over the phone, a telecom isn't responsible for that because they have common carrier status. Would that change if it was a text message and it was stored on their servers in plaintext?

Do any instant messengers enjoy the protection of common carrier status? Can an instant ever qualify for common carrier status?

how is there no doubt telegram is a bad actor. I'm not saying you're wrong, just haven't something concrete that puts them in that category. do you mean it attracts bad actors or they did x which makes them a bad actor.

can you expand on that? what did telegram do that directly benefited a drug cartel? even if that's the case, my concern is encryption is the issue, and they'll use this 'bad actor' for new legislation.

the population will never head to a decline, not while there's immigration. governments won't allow the population provided they have immigrants wanting in.

a big factor no one mentions is women prioritizing a higher education and career. while this is a growing priority, we will see the fertility rate continue to decline.

Showing your ignorance, posting something publicly does not imply you forgo copyright protection. They still retain their copyright whether they post something publicly or not.

AI will probably change copyright law, but as it stands, they are offside using images without permission.

Saying, 'your honor but they posted it publicly' is not a valid argument. Sounds like a whining argument.

here's the difference. the invention alone wouldn't be able to provide these thousands of images that OP could generate without the collective works of numerous artists. they never agreed to be a part of this invention nor are they compensated. and again without them the software is literally useless. so I don't think it's comparable to past inventions.

Most of these cancers are probably environmental/diet but I read recently that women who have children at a young age, have a lower incidence of breast cancer vs women who have no children. And this protective mechanism is even stronger in young women who have multiple children. They believe a protective mechanism takes place in the breast tissue when breast feeding.

But women who have children later in life have a higher incidence of breast cancer than women who never had them. They believe women having children later in life have anomalies multiply during breast feeding.

I wonder could they safely induce breast feeding in young women to benefit from this sans offspring? Or maybe it's too bad we live in a society that can't afford or doesn't want children.