Yeah, as noted above .. people read stuff like this like it's his money. It'd be nice if they taught how screwed up this level of wealth disparity is in schools.

At his wealth, you can put tons of others people's money where ever you damn well want, for any reason, just because you have a hunch (or for vested other interests)

You dummies buy the sockpuppets hook line and sinker.

Reading is difficult.

I mean, what would it be?

"that only a sufficiently educated and credentialled person could possibly overlook."

that's a funny self-own if I've ever read one

Wow man, so you're like saying .. there's some kind of ... cost/benefit analysis that can be done? Whoa dude. You should write some kind of like, business book, or something.

why don't you take the 2 seconds it would take to find out

Uhoh, I hope Meta doesn't lose track of which site is full of posts by bots and which site is ... oops, full of posts by bots.

Neither side apparently said anything about the agreement in court on Friday, which Judge Arun Subramanian said today was âoeabsolutely unacceptable.â âoeIt shows absolute disrespect for the court, the jury and this entire process,â he said.

With this admin, nobody should be surprised. Corruption is standard operating procedure.

So chances are there are photos of your home out there

It doesn't bother me at all. The camera comes out, it's obvious that the camera is there, and is being used. I can ask people not to use it, if I so choose. (I don't because I honestly don't care that much if there are photos of my home "out there".)

What bothers me is a platform that enables video recording covertly. I'm not bothered by the fact that people can bring phones into my house, and elect to take pictures or record video. I *would* be bothered if somebody came in and dropped a secret camera sending video wirelessly in traffic that doesn't go over my network. Glasses with videocameras in them commoditize that capability. Just because covertly recording video inside my house is *technically* possible today doesn't mean it's stupid to object to the proliferation and normalization of a commodity device that makes it easier to do.

Any of these can be activated without your knowledge.

They can't get traffic out of the house without my knowledge, which amounts to the same thing. These platforms tend to be widely scrutinized. What they are *not* are devices other people are bringing in to my home, and then recording me without my knowledge. At least a phone camera needs to have the phone out, generally facing in my direction

some people will even get out the phones while sitting on the toilet

Again, it's much more difficult to record me without me noticing. The whole "but there are cameras everywhere" argument treats every camera as the same thing. They are not, the differences int he platforms and formfactors that contain them matter.

"Cameras are everywhere to point"

Vast oversimplification for the purpose of your argument. They're not in my house. They're not in the washrooms at work. They are not in a number of other places where people have an expectation of privacy. But if glasses are secret cameras now, that drastically changes the kinds of expectations I can have about those places where I can reasonably expect privacy. There's also a different set of expectations as to the accountability and policies followed by those who have access to security cameras vs literally anybody. The potential for misuse and nefarious intention seems to go higher to me when we go from those who collect security footage and .. literally anybody. That security footage and its collection policies can be abused doesn't mean it's unreasonable to expect it's less likely to be abused than whatever some rando is recording when they head into a washroom or my house or what have you.

If the argument is "well maybe there are secret cameras in all those places" ... I mean, that's just a dumb argument against objecting to the introduction of covert potential recording devices into those places. I can't object to things I don't know about, but I can object to something that I know about.

They need not be talented artists or masters of their craft.

I mean clearly the ruling says that the parts that can be copywritten *need to be made by humans*

If what you said is true (you infer that you just need humans to *ask* for AI to do the work, absent talent) then that doesn't square with the conclusion.

"it seems that intelligence remains primarily inherited from parents/ancestors"

citation needed

I would question whether you should be basing an apparent worldview on an argument in which the words "it seems" appears more than once.