sugar_in_your_tea

A specific place that is an aberration in how fast those changes have come

That's really hard to quantify, but yeah, innovation is probably happening faster today than it has in the past, which is likely due to:

• increased connectivity - more people have access to advanced technology
• lower barriers to trade - despite Trump's best efforts, trade/competition between countries still happens
• better access to education

People generally fear change, and change comes with work. Just because you were screwing on toothpaste caps in a factory yesterday doesn't mean that job will make sense forever. Nor should it. Jobs that don't need to be done by humans shouldn't, and people should instead take more useful and fulfilling jobs.

But sometimes people get caught in the crossfire, such as creative people having to compete with machines that can churn out decent, derivative works far more quickly. But that just means that the nature of work will change. If we use the printing press eliminating scribe jobs as an example, people have largely moved from reproducing text to designing new typefaces for branding purposes (or being commissioned for a calligraphy piece).

I think the same is happening w/ art right now. Traditional, 9-5 artists producing largely derivative work is going away, because most people don't need something truly original. So the number of artists will go down, but the truly great artists will still have a place in creating original works and innovating new types of art. We will still need people with an artistic eye to tune what the AI produces, so instead of manually creating the art, they'll guide the art w/ tools, much like how farmers don't hoe fields manually and instead use tractors (which will become increasing autonomous as time passes).

I've gotten into chess recently, and chess is a game that is largely "solved" by AI, meaning the best bot will beat or tie the best human player every time. There's still some competition between the best bots, but bot v human is pretty firmly in the bot camp and has been for years. However, chess is still a vibrant sport, and people still earn a living playing it (and perhaps more than ever!). It turns out we value the human aspect of chess, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think the same applies to art and other fields AI can "replace," because that human touch still very much has value.

If you fight technology, you will lose. So instead of that, fight for fairness and opportunity.

They’re not dumping billions into data centers and talking about using entire nuclear reactors to power them just because they think AI is a fun toy.

Well yeah, they're doing it because they think it'll make us more productive. For a business owner/exec, that means higher profits. For the rest of us, that usually means higher inflation-adjusted incomes (either through increased wages or reduces costs).

Was there anything in the posts above mine that suggest this was a technical issue, or did you read that in as an assumption?

I was responding both to you and to the parent to your comment and making it clear that it's not a technical issue. I'm agreeing with you.

And they were correct.

I disagree.

Yes, not every technological change is good, we can look at Social Media as a shining example of that. However, technological change is usually inevitable, especially if you value freedom in your society, so it's a lot better to solve the issues that surround it than ban it.

The issues are primarily social, not technical.

Right, and having a FOSS alternative is certainly a good thing.

I think it's important to separate opposition to AI policy from a specific implementation. If your concerns are related to the social impact of a given technology, that is where the opposition should go, not toward the technology itself.

That said, this is largely similar to opposition to other types of technological change. Every time a significant change in technology comes about, there is a significant impact to jobs. The printing press destroyed the livelihood of scribes, but it made books dramatically cheaper, which created new jobs for typesetters, booksellers, etc. The automobile dramatically cut back jobs like farriers, stable hands, etc, but created new jobs for drivers, mechanics, etc. I'm sure each of those large shifts in technology also had an overreaction by business owners as they adjusted to the new normal. It certainly sucks for those impacted, but it tends to benefit those who can quickly adapt and make use of the new technology.

So I totally understand the hesitation around AI, especially given the overreaction by C-suites in gutting their workforce based on the promises made by AI marketing teams. However, that has nothing to do with the technology, but the social issues around the technology. Instead of hating AI in general, redirect that anger onto the actual problems:

• poor social safety net
• expensive education
• lack of consequences for false marketing
• lack of consequences for C-suite mistakes

Hating on a FOSS model just because it's related to an industry that is seeing abuse is the wrong approach.

No you.

Explain your exact reasons for thinking it's malicious. There's a lot of FUD surrounding "AI," a lot of which come from unrealistic marketing BS and poor choices by C-suite types that have nothing to do with the technology itself. If you can describe your concerns, maybe I or others can help clarify things.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't think that's the case. It has been dropped, tugged on, etc, so I'm pretty sure the solder joints are weak. I can feel the connector is loose as well.

If I get desperate, I'll pick up a heat gun, some flux, maybe a better soldering iron (I have some cheap Chinese crap) and try it out. But I'm more likely to break it than fix it. I'll try it once I'm ready to replace it anyway.

Section 506 is about penalties, it doesn't define what's legal or not. If your actions don't neatly fall under one category or another but you have violated the exclusive rights of the property owner, courts have a fair amount of discretion in interpreting the law to come up with a judgment.

That's why I linked the exclusive rights grant instead of the penalties, the penalties are based on the rights you violated, so it's a lot more terse than wading through the various penalties that have a bunch of conditions (if you're an org making >X, Y penalties apply, if you're an individual and damages...). If we were talking about what the penalties in a specific case are, then yeah, looking up penalties is instructive. But if we're merely deciding whether a law was violated, then it's a simple matter of identifying whether exclusive rights were violated.

Also, whether the case is tried in civil or criminal courts is irrelevant to legality, it's only relevant to the types of penalties that can be enforced.

Statutory Damages are civil

Yes, and damages are only awarded if the plaintiff can demonstrate that you've violated the law. You can't be forced to pay damages if they can't prove a law was violated.

Risk of liability

All this means is that most files distributed over P2P networks are illegally distributed, which means the risk of breaking the law is higher. If you're just downloading Linux ISOs (where distribution is allowed explicitly in the FOSS license), you're not breaking any laws, but if you're downloading "Linux ISOs," that risk is on you (works are automatically copyrighted).

In fact, it’s actually even more lenient than I had expected, you STILL don’t qualify for criminal charges even if you cost the real copyright owner $999.99.

It's still illegal regardless of the level of damages, it just may not be worth the court's time to enforce.

The main differences between civil and criminal law are the stakes and burden of proof. Civil law has much lower stakes (no jail time), and criminal law has a much higher standard of guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Both are predecated on proving a law was violated.

Any tips on finding someone who does component level repair? I have an old-ish laptop (7 years?) and the only issue is the USB C charger seems to be losing connection. If I flip the charger it works fine, so I think the solder just needs to be reflowed.

I think it would take an experienced person <30 min to fix. It's almost not worth it though since it's so old, but I'd be willing to pay $50-100 if it makes charging work better.

Here's the interpretation by the US copyright office in their FAQ:

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.

The enumerated rights of copyright owners are detailed in Title 17, section 106, with exceptions (e.g. fair use) described through section 122. The relevant portion is:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

My understanding is that the copyright office is using 1&3 in their interpretation. So my understanding is that Meta is violating copyright by downloading copies of copyrighted work if their use doesn't fall under the fair use claims.

And what's with those legs on SMB2? He's clearly on some kind of drugs.

Valve isn't public, but they seem to be making plenty off of WINE. In fact, companies of all types love building on other projects, because it reduces how much work they need to do.

They just don't seem to care. They could literally hire someone who works on Heroic to make an official Galaxy port reusing most of Heroic's functionality. Yet they don't.

And caring about Linux...

Heroic did it. Why couldn't GOG?