I think you are missing the point of the OP. I don't think they are making the same argument as the defendants and accusing Copilot or any of the other current high profile AI systems of over training and literally spitting out thinly modified plagiarized copies.

It's that our current laws on IP were designed with human scale use cases in mind and that maybe they aren't well suited to massive data collection and AI systems, whether they produce significantly transformative works or not.

I'm not really sure. I can see arguments for both, but it seems like a fair point and not just waived away over a few precedents and specious arguments by these specific defendants.

It's almost like it's 1988 again!

While you are right fraud is a special case for the merger agreement, which is exactly why Musk is claiming there is fraud, it is going to be very hard to prove it.

It seems like no matter how many times people correct the record someone always brings it back up again. Twitter has never claimed 5% of tweets or users are bots. Trying to use the number of bots to prove fraud may rile up Musk fans, but it will do nothing in court.

There is no general $1B breakup fee.

I think one of his first strategies was to try to claim the financing fell through because of the banks. A catch is that the financing can't have fallen through because of any influence you (Musk) have on the banks. However, text message between Musk and the banks clearly show he was trying to influence them.

So, he's going all in on trying to claim fraud. That's basically his last shot at getting out of the deal with minimal penalty. If he can't prove fraud he will wind up either being forced to buy or pay a lot more than just $1B.

There is way too much wrong with this post to cover all of the problems but here are just a few.

And she was Secretary of State at the time. Not a civilian. At worst this is mishandling sensitive information, which is very different than, you know, stealing documents and taking them home with you after you are no longer a government employee.

lol, gotta love all the work the or is doing. There is quite a big difference between former and current with regards to handling classified documents.

Are you implying Clinton was the first official to use a private email server for handling classified documents? You know who else used a private email server to send and receive classified information. Pretty much every Secretary of State in the Internet era prior to Clinton (including the previous two Republicans in case you missed that).

There were many, many investigations into what Clinton did. This wasn't covered up by some liberal Democratic administration. Maybe you forgot, but Comey was a Republican and there were 4 years where Trump had control of virtually every aspect of the government. If there was evidence Clinton committed a crime I'm sure they would have found a way to prosecute. On the other hand you seem to be implying Trump shouldn't even be investigate, because you know, Clinton, Benghazi, Chewbacca, Squirrel.

Don't worry Lennart Poettering doesn't know what they mean either.

Broadly, but obviously still more nuanced of course, it is when the government passes a law that restricts what you can or cannot say. It is certainly not the case here, or in virtually any other case right wing complainers ever scream about. E.g., twitter/facebook bans, Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head. It's amazing how you snowflakes (since you love throwing out labels) don't seem to understand that.

And by the way, as individuals we can try to suppress any speech we want as long as the government is not involved. Not to mention the right absolutely loves to try to suppress speech it doesn't like. E.g., Critical Race Theory. You only seem to complain when it's your side gets criticized.

It's amazing that a story about a specific group of people, doctors, saying demonstrably false things (vaccines and masks don't work) while using their professional credentials to give weight to their statements might be subject to the profession's oversight board for discipline is interpreted as anyone saying anything is silenced.

Notice in this story it is not anyone. It is doctors. It is not about propounding beliefs. It is saying things that are demonstrably not true. And they are not being silenced. They are potentially being disciplined based on standards generally agreed upon by the profession.

As has been said before and is applicable here. You (and these doctors) are still absolutely free to say whatever they want. They just have to accept the consequences that come with that, which in this case is being disciplined by their professional review board.

The point is to provide PR and an advertisement for Tesla. You, me, and the public were just initially misled into thinking the point was providing transit for people in Las Vegas.

It's obviously only one case and there are other possible explanations, but given how much we still don't know it doesn't seem wise to assume immunity is a given or long lasting or for all people. It may be, but it's going to take a lot longer to have any definitive answers.

Yeah, I'll never forget his shameless shilling for SCO/Microsoft back in the Groklaw days. Man it makes me feel old realizing that was 15 years ago now. There were countless episodes of his shilling and dishonesty, but without spending more time than I'd like here are a few links that were easy to find. Here, here, and here.

Without considering whether tipping is good or bad this is demonstrably false. From the department of labor, California requires tipped workers to be paid the state minimum wage of $10.00/hour.

I suppose it depends on exactly what you mean, but I don't think so. At least not in an analogous way to the Oracle case.

http://elinux.org/Legal_Issues...

As a former smoker, while some of what you say may be true, your post seems to be just about as equally dangerous and misinformed. There are basically no long term studies that demonstrate the safety of e-cigarettes and there have been several recent reports highlighting the danger of them. For example, here, here and here. Two wrongs by the FDA (e.g., fully endorsing vaping) wouldn't make a right.

Basically, it's not factually incorrect, but very misleading. Sure, they are separate components but they are so tightly coupled you can't really have one without theother so they operate in the same way as a monolithic system despite being split up into multiple components. Facllacy #1 explains it much better than I could here.