But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.

Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.

Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.

And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?

If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?

As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?

Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?

To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a 13" screen most people would have scaling enabled to see it anyway. Not really sure its worth the extra horsepower to push quadruple the pixels, and average them out.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4k screens. My desktop has a pair of 32" 120hz 4k screens.

But on a laptop, especially a 13" model, my priority is going to be battery life, not performance; so 4k is not a hard requirement. Plus this unit features a more old school 3:2 aspect ratio which is arguably more practical and useful than a 1.78:1 widescreen at 13".

Higher than a 13" dell xps. Higher than the 13" Macbook Neo. Higher than a 13" Macbook air... hell it just edges out the display on the Macbook air 15".

Its 120Hz. It's matte. It's touchscreen (if you care).
It seems to be a very solid 13" laptop screen overall.

Copy protection on the original sleeping beauty is long expired.
Copy protection on the Disney version is good for years yet.

In the original versions, the scene i quoted? There is no scene like that in the original version. But it is beat for beat straight from the Disney version. If you want to tell a sleeping beauty story, you absolutely can, the original source material not copy protected, you can faithfully tell that story, including the unconscious rape of the princess to impregnate her so that she finally wakes up at child birth... or you can create more family friendly version all your own with whatever you like. But you can't simply lift a bunch of scenes that only exist in the copy protected Disney version and call it your own original interpretation by changing a few details.

The chatgpt story is a ripoff of the Disney version though.

The scene I quoted with the three "magical gaurdians" bestowing three gifts at a celebration crashed by the sorcerous who places the curse -- that is not from the original source material, its not novel either, its a scene ripped straight from the Disney version. And its not an isolated issue with the AI version.

There is no question that Disney doesn't "own" sleeping beauty, but they do own their telling of it. This was an obvious ripoff of that particular telling in several places.

If a child handed in the Moonlit Princess the teacher would give them a lecture about plagiarism. Because its not remotely original enough. It is so clearly taking so many things straight from Disney's version. Sure the names are changed, and the words "aren't the same", but its far too derivative of that particular version to credibly claim its an original telling of the sleeping beauty story.

"No. It is not copyright infringement"

Go ahead, prompt for that story and publish your own 'moonlit princess". It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive.

" and there's no reason to hold copyright so sacred anyway. Are you seriously wanting to protect hundred year old fairy tails from being retold?"

That's an entirely separate discussion. Legally it is infringement. Whether it should be is completely separate question, or how long it should be are separate questions.

FWIW, I don't agree with copyright being 100 years.

Who is they? And what database are you referring to?

Dictionaries often contain quotes from original source material, or references to where it was first used, or first used a certain way.

Dictionary publishers have never been accused of downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them.

Google on the other hand HAS been accused of that, and the decade of litigation related to that ultimately rules that the limited things google was doing with it was fair use. The dictionary companies are likely paying for enhanced access to that google data now.

The AI companies are singing the same fair use tune, but its really quite different. Google was doing it (at the time) to allow for search so you could enter phrase or quote and find the book it was from and the page it was on, and to collect other meta data - word count, word frequency, analyze sentence complexity, etc... all factual information.

AI companies are using the content of that digitized corpus and everything else they can get their hands on to generate new content, much of which non-factual in nature, and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative.

prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty" ... 2 seconds later we have "The Moonlit Princess" and we'll just self-publish that on Amazon... boom I'm an author!

You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? Even if you wanted to argue that sleeping beauty is a classic fairytale from the 17th century and not under copyright, the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff.

You can replace your entire BMW seat if you like with seats from another vendor. Put in a racing seat, or even install a seat you designed yourself.

This probably was not the brilliant analogy you thought it was going to be. :p

Completely tapped out? That is an odd way of phrasing what he actually said.

In traditional business economics a tapped out market shows signs of stagnation and slowing growth. Instead SpaceX is seeing signs of accelerating user acquisistion. Since he first made the claim, SpaceX has grown from 10 million subscribers to 12 million.

Per customer revenue is down as SpaceX expands into the South American and African markets where they charge lower regional rates. Yet in a little over a year they have had a 60% increase in subscribers paying the full western price.

Physics, huh. Are those physics why adjusted for inflation costs per kilogram to LEO were very roughly $10k for decades. Then the first Falcon 9 expendable dropped that to $5k. Then modern versions of Falcon 9 with landing and resuse dropped that to $2.5k. Falcon Heavy? $1.5k. Starship is projected by the least optimistic space watchers to drop that under $1k per kilogram.

Again with the maintenace costs. So again, can you please explain why you think maintaining the fleet is going to be worse than intially launching the fleet?

So much wrong with the big fat juicy government contracts statement. First of all, the phrasing is just plain intellectually dishonest. You know damn well that SpaceX is charging the government less than other commercial providers. You wanna talk big fat juicy contracts? Go compare what ULA is charging for say a GPS satellite. ($214 million vs $143 million ish) You should thank your lucky stars SpaceX is being so evil.

Second, the government contracts certainly help the bottom line, but are not required for profitability. In terms of pure launch services, the government is providing about half their revenue - roughly 2 billion for third party launches and 2 billion for governent (split pretty even between NASA crew/cargo and military/intel). Again, those contracts are saving the government money over what ULA or Russia charges. On the Starlink side, the 8.7 billion from the consumer and commercial side dwarfs the 2.7 billion from StarShield.

Math gets fuzzy as while it easy to simply wipe all current government revenue from the SpaceX books, you have to get into serious guessimating to figure out how much of their expenses would go down if they lost all government contracts. And gets even more theoretical since SpaceX is absolutely financially bogged down with that massive xAI tumor Musk bolted onto their side. But very roughly if you strip off xAI numbers SpaceX with government is 3.8 billion operating income vs around 1.5 billion without.

Nope. There are brokerage penalties for retail investors trying to flip IPO stocks immediately but that varies by brokerages and applies to all IPOs - not a SpaceX specific policy. Insiders who had preIPO shares do have restriction. Traditionally preIPO insiders have been locked in for 180 days to avoid an immediate cashout SpaceX structured their lock in period to avoid a 180 day mass sell off by allowing a percentage to be sold at 70, 90, 105, 120 and 135 days. That is the only 120 day number I can find.

Musk, by the way, is not allowed to sell anything for a full year.

Nope, depends on the fund. S&P 500, nope. They have a year long seasoning rule and a requirement on profitability. Nasdaq-100, yes. They recently shrunk their requirements in order to attract SpaceX and OpenAI listings over other exchanges such as NYSE. Now only 15 days until they include SpaceX stock instead of, I think, December.

Corruption? *snort* Yeah, that horror of charging $71 million less to put a GPS into orbit than ULA. Space Force phase 3 is $5.9 billion to SpaceX for 28 missions. ULA $5.4 billion for only 19 missions. $74 million per mission cheaper going with SpaceX. Similarly massive savings for NASA having SpaceX do manned launches vs paying the Russians. I can stand more of this corruption.

Aren't we discussing the June 9th Landspace launch?

That launch did not fail on the way up. Its second stage successfully deployed two different direct to cell test satellites for two different providers. The failure came later - believed to be when it was about to start up for its reentry disposal burn.

Curious as to what number you are using for the Starlink altitude.

Their shells are in quite a wide range. Over the last year the bulk of the established satellites have been shifting lower and many of the new satellites (especially onces with direct to cell capability) are being deployed even lower than that. Those lower orbits measure decay time in weeks to months.

Wow I guess someone had to miss him; I thought he was ridiculously overrated myself and didn't care for a lot of his design work over the years.

If you need Ive back in your life, you could check out the new Ferrari ... most of the internet hates it, but maybe its for you.