The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.
I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.
Why care about the person behind the Banksy signature?
The art is the important part here.
It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.
But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.
I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.
All this shows is that society does not need to consume that much fuel, we can adapt.
Not in the slightest.
It just shows we have some levers to reduce consumption that we don't normally use.
It doesn't show that we can reasonably use those levers long term, not that those levers are actually sufficient to reduce fuel consumption enough to make up the difference.
Of course, any disruption of sea life is due to global warming. It has nothing at all to do with massive commercial fishing fleets destroying fish stocks, with knock-on effects throughout the food chain.
That's why actual researchers did a study.
Researchers examined the year-to-year change of 33,000 populations in the northern hemisphere between 1993 and 2021, and isolated the effect of the decadal rate of seabed warming from short shifts such as marine heatwaves. They found the drop in biomass from chronic heating to be as high as 19.8% in a single year.
I mean the method they used to isolate the effects of temperature is literally in the first paragraph of the summary.
When has a regime change by the USA ever improved a country?
Germany is one example.
Japan is another.
It the US planning a long term occupation of Iran?
Because without that they aren't getting regime change, certainly not a regime change they'd like.
I'm guessing two things went into the FAA's decision making:
1) Just like there was uncertainty in the reporting, there was also uncertainty in the FAA as to what the hell was going on. So shutting down the airspace is very prudent.
2) CBP shooting down an object without giving the FAA sufficient notice is a big fracking deal. It very well could have been a civilian aircraft. Making the shutdown a 10 day shutdown guarantees that it becomes national news, which guarantees that reporters will dig into it, CBP will get embarrassed, and they hopefully won't do it again.
xAI wins because Grok is burning through billions and has very little prospects of significant revenue.
Elon Musk wins because he increases his ownership in SpaceX, which is making pretty decent money.
SpaceX win..... SpaceX investors get to share that warm feeling that Tesla investors get from handing over additional large portions of their company to Elon Musk.
He's just bombing more countries than any other president.
Windows 11 is the problem.
Since humans created AI, yes, AI is part of the problem. But only because of humans.
As to what to do about it, another round of covid or something similar) should help nicely with all the anti-vaxxers out there.
If it's not safe to merge, they did the right thing. Or should they just force their way into moving traffic?
The Line was always a deeply silly idea. Cities work due to density and having easy access to many things, while getting a lot of use of the same infrastructure. A city's efficiency and degree of flexible access scales at a better than linear rate with population because of the geometry. If I'm in a given location then if I can access any location within radius R of me, that means the number of locations available goes up as roughly R^2. If one has a giant line, it only goes up like R. The entire idea of The Line read like the sort of thing that a 10 year old had and thought was really cool, and then somehow got to do it. Which given how absolutely spoiled the Saudi princes are, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the case that Mohammed bin Salman had this idea when he was a kid, and no one since then has pushed back on it because they are afraid of being Khashoggied.
Except "R" really depends on your ability to travel. Which means what really matters is your proximity to transit and major roads.
I think the Line is probably a bad idea, but I don't think that's the reason why. I think the bigger issue is that cities are ultimately organic creations, shops, industry, and residences show up where they're needed. I'm not sure a planned city will be economically successful.
Nah, it's not the realisation about the cost at all. I couldn't give a flying fuck about the cost.
It's about convenience. If $15 a month saves me hours searching for and downloading pirated films, it's money well spent.
The convenience is because piracy is illegal.
If it was legal then you could easily combine everything in a single easy to search service that would be cheaper and more convenient than any individual service.
Copyright law has a distinction between commercial for-profit infringement, which is regarded as a criminal offense [cornell.edu] vs. noncommercial infringement which is regarded as a civil offense.
I think this distinction is useful, but it's one degree too severe. For-profit infringement should be the civil offense, and noncommercial infringement (consumer copying) should be fully legal [freepubliclibrary.org], just as rms is saying.
Why? Because copyright wasn't created to allow authors to impose a toll on every individual consumption of every individual work, otherwise libraries wouldn't have been widespread alongside early copyright laws.
Instead, copyright law was created to make sure the author of a work was the only one who had any right to make any profit at all off of their work.
Copyright law was created to ensure that someone could actually make a living creating new works. In the past you could achieve that objective by focusing on commercial publication because distribution was so difficult (your legalization of noncommerical infringement would have ruined that).
Libraries are an edge case that were allowed to exist because whatever you think of the law they worked out for everyone.
But now with the internet publication is trivial, so laws need to adapt. I don't think end-users should be subject to criminal penalties, but the people in the business of infringement? For sure that can be criminal if that's what it takes.
That's why file sharing should be legal, and business models should adapt to the decades-old reality that file sharing is widespread and inevitable. Some businesses have adapted rather well. While it's unfortunate that DRM is widespread, things like streaming services aren't that bad an adaptation. They just need a bit more adapting to truly embrace the 21st century.
People like Kim Dotcom made a LOT of money file sharing. The only reason that streaming services are viable is that filesharing is still illegal. If your ideas were adopted then "noncommerical" protocols and services would just rip off every Netflix and Disney+ show out there and offer it all under one service for a small fraction of the price.
Great for consumers... until those companies go out of business.
Also, as a fun aside, one thing that baffles me is if for-profit copyright infringement is a criminal offense, as described above, then why aren't the major AI companies who commit mass copyright infringement with a profit motive in the training and development of their models being held criminally liable for their actions? The courts are currently twisting themselves into pretzels to try to invent some kind of fair use exception for them out of whole cloth because it feels wrong to charge them all with criminal behavior. But the truth is the law is not being interpreted in good faith, in part because the law itself is horrifyingly outdated and needs to be updated and modernized.
Because the AI companies are actually doing something quite different. It's not entirely clear how the laws apply to what the AI companies are doing, it's also not entirely clear how they should apply to what they're doing. Remember, the point of copyright law isn't copyright law, it's creating a fair and functionality economy surrounding creative works.
I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham
