> The numbers I saw suggested a 1% change in humanity's emissions, half the CO2 budget for the world, would solve the problem.

Where did you see that? Even the Paris Accords - which are kinda the minium effort - calls for 50% CO2 reduction by 2030.

=Smidge=

> However we don't have data on the deep ocean.

Of course we do. What a silly thing to even suggest.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/d...
https://www.nature.com/article...

=Smidge=

> The measures taken did - nothing.

"The doctor said I needed surgery to treat this cancer. I took some aspirin instead. The measures I took did nothing, so clearly the doctor lied to me."

> Perhaps it is time to exercise our collective masses of grey matter (and our AIs) to figure out some feasible coping measures and implement them.

We know what to do. We've known what to do for decades. He simply have not done them, mostly because there's too much money and power to be had in maintaining the status quot. We don't need "AI" to solve this already solved problem and, in fact, "AI" is sucking up the resources we need to solve it while also making the problem worse, faster.
=Smidge=

> Europe isn't socialist. They have some social policies.

So you know that meme, with the Orange County Choppers guys, goes something like this;

"Socialism doesn't work!"
"Norway is Socialist and they're doing great"
"They're not Socialist they're Capitalist with strong social policies"
"Then let's adopt those policies"
"No, that's Socialism!"

That's literally you. You are that asshole. Congratulations.
=Smidge=

> it's never come to fruition before

*gestures vaguely in the direction of Europe*

Y'know it's kinda funny but socialism works fairly well when you don't have capitalist countries actively sabotaging them. You'd think that if it was unworkable you wouldn't have to put in all that effort.

=Smidge=

> Solar and wind are dispatchable.

The other way around.

The availability of solar and wind are contingent on the sun shining and wind blowing. They are not considered dispatchable because we can't command the sun to shine or wind to blow whenever we need it.

Any powerplant can be disconnected from the grid. Happens all the time both intentionally and not so intentionally. The question is how much financial and logistical cost occurs when it does happen; and with solar and wind it's extremely low.
=Smidge=

None of that is true. Grow up and learn how to understand and rate journalism. Start with Appling the spj code of ethics to media.
" Anyone who defends that is off the deep end self-deluding and in full on denial of reality. "
So you post a factual incorrect statement then call anyone with facts delusional. JFC, take some actual media course. Like, in a class room.

He's incapably of learning. I don't thing he has learned anything since 1980.

OFFS lease stop lying. You wither didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
Some of us remember when he was alive, and read went o to study him.
If you actually know what you were talking about, you would understand the difference between Marxist communism and socialism.

Liars like you have become tiresome.

No, you did not. Yor just making things up becasue you are likely functionally illiterate, can'[t hold complex thought or idea, and have no clue how to admit you are wrong. I pity you, Because your are embarrassingly wrong.

That's actually not true at all. Please tell me how many American FDR called evil? Literally one of the, if not the most socialist president whose social programs led to American become a technological and industrial power house.

American modern conservatives primary planks are to take rights away from marginalized group; which s fucking evil.

Get over yourself and read some books.

'Lot of money'. Not really. Historical what they do give is pretty divided, depending on the actual issues.

Your kink actual shows it is. The lawsuit is BS, like most Trumps lawsuits. He is trying extort them is get their companies to kiss his ass and not say anything against them. The is SOP for Trump, going back to the 90s.
This is actual censorship by the governemnt.

> The important context here you may be missing is that this entire opinion is in the context of Hachette v. Internet Archive where non-destructive digitization was ruled not fair use.

It's really strange to argue that the opinion is "in the context of" Hachette when it's not mentioned even once, but okay. The linchpin of that case was that Internet Archive was providing complete copies of the digitized works to others via a digital lending system (not free-for all downloads, but still allowing other people access). That case is also completely irrelevant here because Anthropic was emphatically NOT giving other parties access to the copyrighted works, on whole or in part.

There was also nothing about destructive vs non-destructive digitization in Hachette v. Internet Archive. That's really reaching for straws, man.

> The judge further makes this clear when at the end of the opinion, when the analysis is summarized on page 30 and 31, they write "On balance, as the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement not redistributed, this was a fair use."

Highlighted the relevant part you keep skipping over. Hope you see it this time.

> So if Anthropic had not engaged in the destruction, they might have won still on that

No, because it was decided Anthropic was engaging in fair use through three separate, existing cases and none of them had anything to do with destruction of anything. Let me re-quote the only thing you need to take away from all this:

"Anthropic was entitled to retain a copy of these works in a print format."

Since you cannot be both entitled to retain the physical copy, AND be legally obliged to destroy the physical copy, everything you are arguing is still, and forever will be, bullshit. Digitizing the works for easier reference and processing is fair use (Texaco, Google Books), and doing so did not materially impact the copyright holder's interests (Sony). That is what makes Anthropic's acts fair use. Destroying the physical copies is barely a footnote in this case.
=Smidge=

> So, let me suggest tentatively that given that you weren't even aware this order existed until a few minutes ago, and thought that there was just a settlement should make you slightly less confident about this conclusion

Yeah no. The part I cited, is cited because it is the only relevant part with regards to mandating anything be destroyed. You are insisting that destruction is necessary for legal compliance, which is 100% bullshit.

If it soothes your soul, I'll quote the document you linked;

"This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason."

Even if they had not argued that destruction of the books was part of what made the effort "transformative" - they had already demonstrated that scanning the books was inherently fair use and transformative because the other cases they cited covered everything they were doing and were already ruled fair use. The destruction and therefore avoidance of creating an "additional copy" is merely icing on the cake; they were in the clear even without that argument. It is basically without consequence.

You keep quoting Anthorpic's arguments, try actually reading what the judge thought of those arguments?

Digitizing the books counts as fair use in this case for exactly the same reason as it does in the Google Books case because it fundamentally changes the way the media is interacted with ("eased storage and enabled searchability"), and in the Sony case because it "was not done for purposes trenching upon the copyright ownerâ(TM)s rightful interests." (page 14)

Further, "As a result, Anthropicâ(TM)s format-change from print library copies to digital library copies was transformative under fair use factor one. Anthropic was entitled to retain a copy of these works in a print format. It retained them instead in a digital format, easing storage and searchability." Emphasis mine. Anthorpic was under no obligation to destroy the books, but being the legal owners of the physical copies had the right to do with them as they pleased, including destruction, insofar as copyright was not violated. (Page 17)

Further further, "To be clear, this print-to-digital conversion involved a different and narrower form of transformative use than the broader one advanced by Anthropic. Anthropic argues that the central library use was part and parcel of the LLM training use and therefore transformative. This order disagrees. However, this order holds that the mere conversion of a print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability was transformative for that reason alone." Emphasis mine. The judge ackno0wledges thay they did not create additional copies, but flatly rejects the idea that destruction of the physical originals makes the act transformative and fair use. It is merely transformative in the same sense as the Texaco and Google cases, where digitization improves access or convenience. This is directly opposed to your conclusion that the destruction was a necessary and "major" reason it was transformative. It was literally meaningless. (page 18)

Anthropic had every right to retain the physical copies if they saw fit; it was just easier for them to destroy the books as part of the scanning process. You're allowed to destroy your own property and that has no weight one way or the other in terms of copyright.
=Smidge=