Parents, copyrights, and trademarks are grouped together as Intellectual Property. They’re all quite distinct however.

The signing ensures the integrity of the data, whether using a public block chain or not.

The signed document can be distributed as widely as you’d like - it doesn’t need to be attached to a block chain to do this.

Sure, there’s always going to be outliers. Most people live and work in the same metropolitan area though - they’re not driving 50,000km+ a year. Besides, having a vehicle with 5 times the effective lifetime is going to be a big win regardless of how much you drive it.

Thanks!

I missed the site wide rules.

Yeah, that sort of rule requires a lot of faith in the moderators. Seems like they’re probably violating it themselves with their moderation.

Perhaps I don’t really understand - looking at the world news community on lemmy.ml rule 1 seems to be about only posting links to news articles. None of the things on the mod log screenshot look like news articles. Isn’t this the mods doing their jobs correctly?

The OP’s situation seems completely different to this and it’s definitely a problem - what am I missing about the rule 1 stuff though?

Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.

I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.

Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.

In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion. There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window. No crashes to desktop, no broken progression. It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.

I’ve always heard them described as seagull managers. Screams loudly, shits everywhere, leaves.

This’ll be the real reason.

My comment was just unhelpful and inappropriate - a bad joke aimed at puritanical Americans.

Politics.

“More tug jobs? Not on my watch!”

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

The UNIX philosophy isn’t about having only one way to do things - it’s about being able to use tools together. The deliberately simple interface is what makes it so powerful - almost any existing too can become part of a pipeline. It’s adaptable.

Yeah, he’s maybe taken it a bit far, but his point is still valid. If I’m talking about my experience with abuse it should be allowed to stand alone. I shouldn’t have to acknowledge its place in the meta.

It’s fine to discuss its place in the wider conversation, but I shouldn’t be forced to engage with it when sharing my experience. When people do try to push this it does unfortunately come across as invalidating my experience.

The original commenter posting that bit makes it seem like they’re minimising their experience for fear of others’ reactions.

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there’s nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.

I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?

Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

Braking does not increase range. Regenerative braking reduces the losses involved, it doesn’t eliminate them. Your last sentence makes it sounds like not braking enough will lower your range - that isn’t the case.

And then trying to hold the card issuer liable rather than your cousin…

I don’t think so. Those users had opted in to share information within a certain group. They’ve already accepted the risk of sharing info with someone who might be untrustworthy.

Plenty of other systems do the same thing. I can share the list of games on my Steam account with my friends - the fact that a hacker might break into one of their accounts and access my data doesn’t mean that this sharing of information is broken by design.

If you choose to share your secrets with someone, you accept the risk that they may not protect them as well as you do.

There may be other reasons to criticise 23andMe’s security, but this isn’t a broken design.