But your copy and pasting [...]

I don't cut and paste, but I do quote.

Don't let any of the art or art history profs at the local college hear you say that, they'll probably turn violent!

I've talked to quite a few, I'm still in one piece ;-)

Yes, I agree that voluntary attendees are more likely to actively engage. If they've been lucky enough to learn the process at school or elsewhere, they will know how to proceed.

But Bones, it's AI. Just not as we know IT.

Sitting and Looking at Art as a form of appreciation is not really a form of engagement. Engagement means using your brain and actively performing tasks with a goal. That's not true if you're merely enjoying an image, a natural environment or even a movie, passively. It is true if you're an art critic preparing an essay in your head without using an LLM.

There are things that seem like appreciation but are actually engagement. For example, meditation. It isn't sitting still, it is concentrating for the purpose of total awareness and control of one's body and its automatic functions. It's quite stressful when you're a beginner.

Not at all. When it's rigged, it's not gambling,and the law agrees with me.

And that's why OP was not allowed to drive taxis at the time. Can you say the same for AIs?

The high US insurance prices aren't funding a lot of medical research. The research is done around the world in universities and research institutes at a steady rate.

The US pharmaceuticals want a lot of money from Americans so they can *develop* the existing research into products and corner the market. That is not cheap, because the bar to entry is high. The bar to entry is high because when private corporations rush to market, they make mistakes. And they rush to market only so that they can beat their competitors.

Other countries don't mind waiting a little longer to see if the rushed drugs have side effects. This lowers their price. Because once the pharmaceuticals have served the impatient clients first, their marginal costs are almost zero and the added revenue is effectively free.

It's not gambling when a participant can act on insider information.It's a rigged system.

The comparison with casino games is not appropriate. The casino merely biases the outcome to give players a less than even chance of winning. That chance is low, but guaranteed to be nonzero, and the gamblers are able to agree to the conditions of the game in full.

Insider trading causes the "gambler" to be deliberately misled into thinking a particular game is being played when it is not.

3D printers are bought all around the world, and many countries do not have the lawful right to carry or manufacture personal weapons designed for killing people.

Bambu Lab wants to sell its products in the wider international markets - for the purpose of increased profitability of course. Therefore, it needs to optimize its offerings so that it doesn't fall afoul of the law in all countries of interest simultaneously.

Why would any of this require reducing benefits or even increasing working hours? These are orthogonal issues with privacy and sovereignty and national security.

Not sure that makes sense in this context: "each operator improvising its own survival plan in isolation" is the essence of open source. Scratch your own itch. Do it without endless coordination and compromises with other people being required. Explain and share your solution. If others like it, they can use it. If not, they can improvise their own.

Hush now, trumpist, we've debated this to death in another story. You lost.

I think it's a great idea. It was a technically reasonable solution to sharing the costs of hosting and serving content when the web was small. It got run over by spam and trolls and warez eventually but we've learned a lot about content moderation and filtering in the last 25 years.

The main issue is that companies feel they can't monetize their own content if they have no way to control distribution servers, but that should not be a consideration for open source provided it's the kind of open source that is willing to be free to use by everyone.

And just like that.... we're reinventing Usenet.

So they should willingly contribute to the public good by wholly paying for not just the expansion they want themselves but also extra.

Many of them will eventually, by going out of business. That will cause demand destruction. In the meantime they are like the smelly neighbour who showed up at the party, and everyone just has to hold their nose.