Is watching those around you starve/freeze to death due to having $0 (or less!) not a reason to care about whether some people make more than $15M? How many people could that hoarded wealth have housed and clothed and fed?
> Cuba or Venezuela were richer than Spain in the 50s just to give you a couple of examples. And Venezuela has natural resources.
Sorry, I checked GDP per capita charts, and it appears that Cuba was not richer than Spain in 50s. It would be implausible that a small country with little natural resources would become richer than the country that colonized it in so little time.
And Venezuela become poorer than Spain in 1982. So it had no relation with "take everything from the others and give to the poor".
Counterpoint for your argument: outside the west, between non-alignment countries, only places where marxist-leninist revolutions happened produced powers that were able to seriously compete with the west. For example, URSS and China.
Sure. That's a perfectly legit criticism. It's not, however, an excuse for the terrible way things have been done.
If you want to fix a problem, you fix the original cause. You do not come along at the very end and adjust the values to where you think they should be.
It's not the codecs that were multithreaded in this release. Pretty much all modern codecs are already multithreaded. What they decided to parallelize is ffmpeg itself. You know, the filter graphs and such. They didn't do anything to the codecs themselves.
Given that most farmers already use chemical fertilizer rather than shit, we're not short on data for analysis.
One benefit you overlooked is knowing exactly what and how much you're putting in your soil. A bag of ammonium nitrate gives you a known quantity to factor with while shit is far from homogeneous in its makeup.
> AI is not reproducing it any more than someone inspired by it creating something new in the same style would be.
This argument implies that AI scientists have replicated the human mind. Despite the hype, they have not. The two processes are not the same, nor is the nature of the "training data" both entities have been trained on.
>> AI is not reproducing it any more than someone inspired by it creating something new in the same style would be.
> This argument implies that AI scientists have replicated the human mind.
No, MightyBuzzard was not necessarily making an argument about the way the human mind is. Suppose that an AI model is prompted to make an image in X artist's style, and a human is commissioned to make an image in the same X artist's style. The result from the AI model cannot be ex-ante assumed to be more of a reproduction of X artist's actual works than is the result from the human. What matters first is the actual similarity of the new works to one or more old works. The method of creation of the new work comes second. If the style of the new work is similar to the style of the old work but the new work is not actually substantially similar to any of the old works, then the method of creation doesn't matter.
From an article about the substantial similarity test in the US [1]:
> To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1][3]
The key phrase is "the work". An actual work, not a style.
"Regular people writing and creating artwork are greedy asshats for wanting it to remain possible to be compensated for their creations" is really not a strong argument, especially against "massive, wealthy companies want to be able to create works that mimic the style of these artists and writers for profit with zero marginal cost in perpetuity".
I disagree. Protecting ideas for a limited duration is how you incentivize creation.
If someone comes up with a new machine, why publish it if it's legal for every factory and large company to start producing them without compensating the inventor? Why sell it yourself if any big company can immediately clone it and undercut your price?
As for "works", I also disagree. Consider music: two artists may have unique performances of a piece, but the composition exists separate from either.
> If someone comes up with a new machine, why publish it if it's legal for every factory and large company to start producing them without compensating the inventor? Why sell it yourself if any big company can immediately clone it and undercut your price?
Because you want to make money? There will always be a period in which you exclusively are manufacturing and marketing your machine, before your hypothetical evil omni-corp manages to clone it. Reverse engineering takes time, and (fair, enforced) competition on manufacturing means that we converge on the true cost to manufacture a good faster.
That period is a matter of hours. Unless you already own a plant, the companies that produce goods produce generic clones with the same tooling after hours.
New fashion trends have clones in online stores in days. Unofficial accessories and cases are available before product launches. Crowdfunded campaigns for hardware have clones on Alibaba before the funding campaign is over.
> If someone comes up with a new machine, why publish it if it's legal for every factory and large company to start producing them without compensating the inventor?
Sure, this is the goal of the patent system. You'll note that patents are intended for inventions, for ideas of practical value. Artworks without practical value are explicitly not protected by the patent system, nor are ideas without the necessary design components.
How would extending this system to ideas of pure form, rather than function, benefit society?
No, the problem is that DST is the incorrect time. If you want to stop changing the clocks, you set them all to the correct time and leave them alone. You do not declare "We shall be wrong from now on!"
Isn't the actual problem that geographic regions within time zones have wildly different natural times? E.G. Bangor Maine and Detroit Michigan are in the same time zone. The sun rises and sets almost an hour earlier in Bangor than it does in Detroit. Which time is correct?
There’s two “announcements” I see in the Reddit threads, and it isn’t clear which he’s talking about here: the internal announcement, from an hour before the public announcement.
It’s pretty shitty if he sold after the internal, and still even if he waited “3-6 minutes” after public, he still had an hour to prep his sell and make a decision on whether he would.
I think you have gumbo confused with jambalaya. Jambalaya is the anything goes dish. Most people from the region have a fairly sacrosanct idea of what a gumbo is supposed to be.
