If they ask for a birthdate, reply like Crocodile Dundee: "In the summer."
For services that have no damned business knowing my real birthdate, I always use the start of the Unix epoch: 1/1/1970.
It has two advantages; (1) most calendar picker widgets default to January 1, so it's fewer clicks, and (2), for me at least, it is close enough to being true that no one would ever challenge it, even in person.
Even that is going to hinge on your definition of "human"
Human = "politically connected multi-billionaire citizen and land owner"
Obviously.
On the one hand, Trump and his idiotic fixation "America First!" goes against all sorts of (unbiased) economic wisdom. I'm strongly against protectionist policies.
But on the flip side, I work in this industry, and China is well known for blatantly stealing American IP. If they won't play by international IP rules, something like this feels like the right response
IMO, we shouldn't be banning unless there are real, verifiable security concerns.
Instead, we should be using a combination of tariffs on Chinese robotics, subsidies and R&D investment at home, partnerships with emerging robotic makers like Vietnam, or partnerships with Mexico where there's a robust and growing deployment and software development industry for robotics and automation.
We cannot be an isolated autarky, so we need to treat this as an onion: Strengthen our position at home first, collaborate with markets we are already integrated (Mexico), partner with existing markets (Germany, Japan) or emerging ones (Vietnam) where IP laws are respected, and then seek protections against competitors with unfair advantages or that violate IP laws.
And all of that while luring talent from abroad while cultivating talent at home.
A ban by itself doesn't do anything to prevent competitive stagnation.
The plaintiff says he resigned after reporting the alleged assaults and is seeking damages for constructive discharge and emotional distress.
And I hope the plaintiff wins. When I used to work in retail and fast food, I ran into similar primitive managers, for whom humilitation was, apparently, a good management strategy.
But I never saw anything like this, going into the physical.
And that's the problem with many sales positions - no shade to the industry or its workers, but we tend to see the most uneducated savages climbing to management positions. Not just bad managers, but really horrible, abusive types.
Yet the phone became evidence the moment it was confiscated. It was in the possession of the authorities.
It absolutely is a crime to intentionally destroy evidence. Been that way for hundreds of years.
It's a crime to destroy evidence of guilt and evidence of innocents too.
Until that evidence is deemed not relevant and returned to the owner, it is a crime to destroy it.
But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.
Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.
Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.
And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?
If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?
As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?
Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?
To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.
On a 13" screen most people would have scaling enabled to see it anyway. Not really sure its worth the extra horsepower to push quadruple the pixels, and average them out.
Don't get me wrong, I love 4k screens. My desktop has a pair of 32" 120hz 4k screens.
But on a laptop, especially a 13" model, my priority is going to be battery life, not performance; so 4k is not a hard requirement. Plus this unit features a more old school 3:2 aspect ratio which is arguably more practical and useful than a 1.78:1 widescreen at 13".
Higher than a 13" dell xps. Higher than the 13" Macbook Neo. Higher than a 13" Macbook air... hell it just edges out the display on the Macbook air 15".
Its 120Hz. It's matte. It's touchscreen (if you care).
It seems to be a very solid 13" laptop screen overall.
The factual reality it ignores is that mistakes by the judicial system in cases covering petty crime, family court, domestic disputes, civil torts, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with mistakes made in capital cases. Asserting that mistakes made in a local municipal court, which would never see a capital case, is grounds for banning capital punishment is like saying that worms in avocados imported from Mexico means the sale of all fruit grown in the US should be banned.
Conflating capital cases with non-capital cases works against your cause, not for it. If you don't understand that, then you are less likely to achieve your goals. Zealotry -- which is fundamentally a political pose -- is not an efficient means to create change.
Cool story, but this wasn't about the death penalty.
Every story about a wrong conviction is a story about the death penalty
That is the most politically saturated comment I've read on Slashdot in years. It completely ignores factual reality in order to push a specific agenda.
Here's a hint: if you want your cause to be taken seriously, don't become blinded by zealotry. In this case, there are plenty enough things wrong with the death penalty that you don't need to make this sort of off-putting overgeneralization, and, by doing so, you are harming your cause, rather than helping it.
Copy protection on the original sleeping beauty is long expired.
Copy protection on the Disney version is good for years yet.
In the original versions, the scene i quoted? There is no scene like that in the original version. But it is beat for beat straight from the Disney version. If you want to tell a sleeping beauty story, you absolutely can, the original source material not copy protected, you can faithfully tell that story, including the unconscious rape of the princess to impregnate her so that she finally wakes up at child birth... or you can create more family friendly version all your own with whatever you like. But you can't simply lift a bunch of scenes that only exist in the copy protected Disney version and call it your own original interpretation by changing a few details.
The chatgpt story is a ripoff of the Disney version though.
The scene I quoted with the three "magical gaurdians" bestowing three gifts at a celebration crashed by the sorcerous who places the curse -- that is not from the original source material, its not novel either, its a scene ripped straight from the Disney version. And its not an isolated issue with the AI version.
There is no question that Disney doesn't "own" sleeping beauty, but they do own their telling of it. This was an obvious ripoff of that particular telling in several places.
If a child handed in the Moonlit Princess the teacher would give them a lecture about plagiarism. Because its not remotely original enough. It is so clearly taking so many things straight from Disney's version. Sure the names are changed, and the words "aren't the same", but its far too derivative of that particular version to credibly claim its an original telling of the sleeping beauty story.
"No. It is not copyright infringement"
Go ahead, prompt for that story and publish your own 'moonlit princess". It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive.
" and there's no reason to hold copyright so sacred anyway. Are you seriously wanting to protect hundred year old fairy tails from being retold?"
That's an entirely separate discussion. Legally it is infringement. Whether it should be is completely separate question, or how long it should be are separate questions.
FWIW, I don't agree with copyright being 100 years.
Who is they? And what database are you referring to?
Dictionaries often contain quotes from original source material, or references to where it was first used, or first used a certain way.
Dictionary publishers have never been accused of downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them.
Google on the other hand HAS been accused of that, and the decade of litigation related to that ultimately rules that the limited things google was doing with it was fair use. The dictionary companies are likely paying for enhanced access to that google data now.
The AI companies are singing the same fair use tune, but its really quite different. Google was doing it (at the time) to allow for search so you could enter phrase or quote and find the book it was from and the page it was on, and to collect other meta data - word count, word frequency, analyze sentence complexity, etc... all factual information.
AI companies are using the content of that digitized corpus and everything else they can get their hands on to generate new content, much of which non-factual in nature, and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative.
prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty"
The kingdom celebrated for seven days and seven nights. At the grand naming feast, three magical guardians arrived, each bringing a special gift.
The first guardian said, "May Lyra always have a kind heart."
The second smiled and whispered, "May she be wise enough to guide her people with fairness."
The third raised her glowing staff. "May hope follow her wherever she goes."
But before she could finish, a shadow swept across the hall.
It was the sorceress Vespera, who had been forgotten when the invitations were sent.
"You celebrate without me?" she cried. "Then hear my gift! On her sixteenth birthday, Princess Lyra will touch the thorn of the Moon Rose and fall into an endless sleep."
You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? Even if you wanted to argue that sleeping beauty is a classic fairytale from the 17th century and not under copyright, the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff.
I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.
If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.
Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.
You can replace your entire BMW seat if you like with seats from another vendor. Put in a racing seat, or even install a seat you designed yourself.
This probably was not the brilliant analogy you thought it was going to be.
C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg. -- Bjarne Stroustrup
