No, that's a bad idea. A menu bar at the top of the screen is a much bigger target to hit, and easy to find by muscle memory. The file menu is always in the same place, regardless of what app you're using, and the buttons extend infinitely up above the screen. By contrast, a menu bar tied to the window moves around whenever the window moves, so you always have to visually find it again, and target size is just the size of the button and ends at the top of the window.

Yeah, that's the position of the copyright office.:

The guidance goes on to instruct applicants for copyright registration to "disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author's contributions to the work" and "AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be explicitly excluded from the application."

It's a test case. Specifically, he tried to register the copyright in the work naming the AI system as the author, and himself as the owner of a work-for-hire. The copyright office refused registration, because AIs can't be authors, and therefore there was no human author. He may well own the output, but it's not subject to copyright.

No. From the decision:

Specifically, the employer (including corporate entity) of a employee who creates a work for hire is the legal owner of the copyright, but they are not the author. The employee is the author, and ownership passes to the employer by law.

Not sure which fees you're looking at. Here's the fee schedule. Filing a provisional application is $325 for a large entity vs. $130 and $65 for a small and micro, respectively. But that's just a provisional, which never gets examined or turns into a patent. For a nonprovisional application, there are filing fees, search fees, and examination fees, totaling $2k for a large entity, or $730 for a small entity and $400 for a micro entity.

Legally, no - anyone can file a patent application pro se.

But it's like doing your own appendectomy. Legally, you can do that, too. But it's a terrible idea, and you are likely to make mistakes that are permanent and unfixable.

I'm not sure if you've ever been in a car or not, but the seat belt chimes when you first turn the car on, not randomly while you're driving down the highway.

Not to blindly defend erthyritol, we should definitely look at it closer. But "less bad" doesn't mean good. Sugar is still very unhealthy.

As far as history: let me give you an extremely quick rundown. Diabetes was known to the ancients, but was extremely rare until the 18th century, when British sugar plantations made it affordable. (The slave labor involved wasn't very healthy, either). That's when diabetes, obesity, and extreme amounts of tooth decay reached the British working class.

Sugar was a very popular trading commodity for native populations. And they were even less equipped to deal with it: tooth loss, diabetes, obesity and cancer skyrocketed in these populations soon after Western diets were introduced (British Empire medical records are a great source for this).

Maybe we are back to that 'over processed foods' problem. None of the sugar replacements can be made in your kitchen because they need to be 'refined' way more than cane sugar.

Sugar is a massively processed food, and it's subsidized to make it artificially cheaper. It's really easy to spot new threats, but we it's hard to recognize the dangerous things we do every day.

I'm sorry, but that's a complete non sequitir. Look at housing prices, inflation or anything else that's gone up in the last 60 years. The amount of change is completely orthogonal to personal choices.

The obesity crisis is the flip side of smoking cessation. People didn't just decide to stop smoking: doctors/government agencies/NGOs ran a decades-long pressure campaign designed to highlight the risks.

Starting in the 70's, many of the same well-meaning people started demonizing fat and protein. The USDA, doctors (who are really good at medicine and surgery, but not at dietary advice) started recommending less and less fat and protein. Bad pop science associated dietary cholesterol with heart problems.

Something had to fill that dietary gap: cheap (and government-subsidized) carbs from corn and wheat. That's just about all poor people eat, because it's all they can afford. And guess who suffers the most from diabetes, obesity, heart attacks etc? The poor. Are you still so sure it's a choice?

Portraying obesity/metabolic diseases as a personal failure instead of a health crisis that affects the MAJORITY of Americans is a very Republican move. Are you sure you're not voting for Trump?

> “The amount in sugar substitutes is thousands of folds higher than what is made in our bodies, so to call it ‘natural,’ it’s not,” he [study author Dr. Stanley Hazen] said.

And what is the amount of sugar in the diet of a typical American? If we compare that to the amount of sugar in the human diet since the beginning of time, would we consider that "natural"? What about those "natural" fruits? Most are giant sugar globes, deliberately engineered to increase sweetness and reduce fiber.

Based on the article description, this study does nothing but implicitly back the Standard American Diet. You know, the one packed with modern strains of corn, sugar, and wheat? Before we freak out about some new sweetener, maybe we should start asking ourselves why the MAJORITY of Americans have metabolic diseases. It ain't from eating a few grams of sugar alcohols.

As it is, this article is like freaking out about a purse snatcher when your entire government is run by the mob.

No, because the image wasn't copied, but this isn't about copyright either. This is about trademark rights. If someone sold the mug saying "here's a mug with a picture by Salvador Dali", that would arguably infringe his estate's trademark rights on his name (as well as being fraudulent).

This isn't trademark infringement though, because they're not saying "here's an Ansel Adams picture," but rather "here's an Ansel Adams-style picture". That falls under nominative fair use, and the fact that it was made by AI is no different than if it were made by an art grad school student: people are allowed to duplicate famous artists' styles, as long as they're not trying to pass their version off as being actually made by that person. You can make your own Picasso-style paintings, you just can't sell them as "lost" Picassos.

This isn't about copyright, it's about trademark. There's still no infringement, but that's because of the way his name is used falls under nominative fair use, which is a fair use doctrine exclusive to trademark law.

This has nothing to do with copyright. It's about trademark rights to his name.

Don't forget buying puts. Instead of exposing directly by shorting stock, you can buy puts to obtain a similar position for a (typically, but not always) portion of what a real position would cost. Unless you're an Ape, then you just YOLO. Honestly, after watching GameStop, I'm tempted to buy some calls, just in case a million apes decide to throw mom's savings into it.