Any history book promoting an assassin or domestic terrorist would not be legitimate. Single-handedly derailing AI, space, automotive, and social media for personal political ideology will surely be framed in the same way Lee Harvey Oswald is.
Who said assassination? Could be that someone convinces him to stop behaving as erratically as he does. (Yeah, doesn't feel all that realistic...)
Or someone who finally manages to convince the American public that he isn't a hero but exactly the raiving drug-addled Nazi fucklord he is, so they stop worshipping him as some kind of fucking Capitalist Messiah.
Doing either of those would surely merit being called "a hero", wouldn't it?
Are you talking about the California shooting in 2015, where the FBI asked Apple to decrypt the phone? The way I recall it being resolved was some contractor decrypted it after Apple refused to
The rationale obviously points to stack exchange blocking AI from training off their content on archive.org. They go on to demand adherence to “socially responsible” AI training which requires cash-flow between AI companies and the data sources they train from.
First, and most obviously, stack exchange does NOT own the forum content. It has been provided for FREE by the larger developer community, and that same community regularly makes use of the AI tools which will be inhibited by this policy change. Second, stack exchange is questioning the integrity of archive.org by hiding the data.
Developers are the real victims here, and the audacity of Stack Exchange to demand money for work they DIDN’T do, but continuing to NOT pay their forum contributors is peak irony.
Actually no, we agree to provide it under two licenses, one of which is CC-BY-SA. We don't give them ownership, we give them irrevocable usage rights.
> You agree that any and all content, including without limitation any and all text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, animations, and product feedback (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC BY-SA 4.0), and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to access, use, process, copy, distribute, export, display and to commercially exploit such Subscriber Content, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by you as reasonably necessary to, for example (without limitation):
Yes, but does that mean that SO is obligated to share the data with AI companies?
I know that the CC-BY-SA [1] says
> No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
It just means others will scrape and push into the Internet Archive (or publish torrents). They aren’t obligated, but they also have little control regardless of gating mechanisms.
They don't own the content according to the TOS, they get a license to use it (the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license). They could still use it for AI training, but the model would have to be CC BY-SA 4.0 (not that AI companies care).
This definitely forbids the "I will not transfer it to others without permission from Stack Overflow" checkbox, as the CC BY-SA 4.0 license says "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."
The Stack Exchange TOS ( https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public ) doesn't assign ownership - posters retain copyright, SO gets a non-exclusive license to it, and everybody else gets it under various CC wiki terms.
Amazon Warehouse positions all pay well above minimum wage, in every state. They also offer benefits. Concluding Amazon isn’t paying enough, because a large portion of their workforce qualifies for food stamps, is the wrong conclusion.
This just means that minimum wage is currently set at poverty wages.
Minimum wage is set by politicians, not some arms length regulatory agency. So it's entirely possible that the minimum wage is stagnant for intractable political reasons and out of touch with reality.
Amazon warehouse pays $21+ an hour here, and you only need at least 12 hours a month to keep the job. The vast majority of workers are part time, and work in 4 hour shifts.
> Amazon Warehouse positions all pay well above minimum wage, in every state
Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, so that's not saying much.
Going by state minimum wage, your statement is incorrect. According to Google the average Amazon warehouse worker in California makes $17-18 an hour. California minimum wage is $16 per hour.
Wherever you’re getting the pay rate info is wrong. You can go to the Amazon Hiring site and see they’re offering $20.75/hr right now in California. Amazon has always paid high wages for warehouse work, and not even close to the Federal line, so brining that up proves nothing.
I'm sure Bezos appreciates the PR you're doing for him, but you're wrong. "Up to $20.75/hr" is what they're offering, that's not the same as $20.75/hr. The pay rates marginally above minimum wage for California.
Attacking someone character shows mental weakness. Even if everyone in the state worked at that pay rate, it would still be more than enough to live above poverty, which was the original point. If you want a consolation prize for finding a single contrary data point, then you’ve done it but haven’t really said anything relevant.
If you knew someone working at an Amazon Warehouse position who needed to use government benefits to get by, would you consider them "well" or even "fairly" paid?
They either aren't working very many hours or they have a lot of dependents. There is no other way to legally qualify for government benefits even at the lowest wages Amazon pays.
If you have several children and are a single parent, should Amazon pay you 2x or 3x your childless coworkers, just to keep you off of government support?
By that logic, if we had universal health care, you could then say every single person who chooses to use it instead of buying private insurance "needs govt benefits to get by" and is therefore not well paid.
Judging from the pettiness of the negative comments against Tile, I have to assume it’s the single greatest product on the market! Also, it appears your comment is being suppressed, because the age and number of replies should put it higher, but it’s now buried hours later.
