Zagorath

Yes. Cars are the bullies and the dictators. But as the famous saying goes, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Drivers like @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml are pretending that cyclists are the ones being "dictators", merely for existing, because they perceive that existence as a personal slight against them. Drivers feel entitled, and when that entitlement faces even the slightest pushback, they accuse the others of being dictators.

Would you like to try answering the questions?

I'm still waiting for an answer from @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml.

To be clear, at the time I made that comment, every top-level response in this thread had precisely one downvote, apart from two. One had many downvotes ("Most of them"), obviously just not very constructive. The other was this one. It's obviously the result of some troll.

Maybe, but I'd say if they don't know Tank Man, seeing it in this context without further explanation is still unhelpful. Because they're likely to think it's a photo taken in America today.

Huh, fair enough.

Direct link to the actual toot source.

The second image is a bit on the nose IMO. The comparison was clear enough from the original. And yeah maybe some people need it pointed out to them, but I suspect those people are also the ones who will reject the idea regardless.

I am a 38 year old woman

Holy shit that's bad. You're literally more than double the age limit and it still didn't do the right thing. That's beyond even "looks young for their age" territory into just "catastrophic failure of the system". Out of interest though...in your own opinion (or the opinion of people who know you IRL), do you at least look rather young for your age?

That means millions of people will be incorrectly flagged as minors and potentially lose access to entire regions of the internet

And the other way around. You can guarantee there'll be some children who are not supposed to get through the system who nonetheless will do so. And you can also guarantee that these will mostly be non-white, so whatever harms the content that's being blocked is supposed to do will be done predominantly to minority communities.

I've said it before and I will say it every time this comes up. The only acceptable way this system should work is via parental controls. Operating systems should be able to store a user's age, and apps & websites should be able to access that age via an API. Parents should be able to set their child's age in that system and lock it with a password so that the child can't edit it. That removes any possibility that shitty AI will fuck things up for people. It removes any privacy concerns associated with uploading government ID. It literally addresses all the concerns people could have with the system, beyond the very idea of the system itself.

Never been in Brisbane in early September?

They're saying that cars are bigger and stronger than bikes, which makes them able to bully cars, which makes them feel entitled to do so. Because they then feel entitled to the road, they start calling cyclists "dictators" when they are merely using the road.

It's a shockingly accurate description of behaviour that cyclists face on a daily basis, with drivers threatening their lives for no reason more than that the drivers feel entitled to do so.

Please explain exactly what you mean by "full blown road dictators", and clearly detail how it is different from "use the road in a completely legal manner in ways trying to keep yourself and others from getting run over by the many car drivers with a sense of entitlement to the road".

I don't speak Swedish, so I am relying on machine translation here, which admittedly may be causing issues. However, the machine translated version of that Lawline article looks fairly clear. They are using the a word that most literally translates as "plagiarism", but it carries a meaning that is very clearly closer to copyright infringement.

Kind of like how French "demander" might literally be translated into English as "to demand", but its actual meaning is closer to English "ask". Related, but carrying importantly different connotations.

That's not me staying confidently that you're wrong about Sweden having plagiarism laws, but only that that source does not (if the machine translation is to be believed) prove the point you thought it did.

A good rule of thumb to tell if a law is actually about plagiarism per se (and not copyright infringement) is to ask whether it could apply if you were doing it to Beethoven or Shakespeare. Or even to yourself, because "self-plagiarism" is a thing—you need to cite yourself if you're referencing something you yourself did previously —but "self–copyright infringement" is not.

Another feature of plagiarism is that it is entirely alleviated by clearly citing the source. If you can say "this part of my text came from this source" and avoid the fine, that fine really was plagiarism. If not, it's probably copyright infringement.

argumentations in the swedish judicial system are not written in the impenetrable formal language of anglophone countries and are actually quite simple to parse, since they are not being used as precedence (since sweden is a civil law country rather than common law).

This is fascinating. Personally I'm not a lawyer, just an amateur with a passing interest in the law. I've read a handful of judgments and tend to find them fairly easy to read. Legislation itself can be impenetrable, and references to it can make a judgement difficult to follow (as can references to precedents), but assuming you know the black-letter law, I think most lay people can read a judgement and follow its logic pretty comfortably, even in common law jurisdictions.

But that is still definitely a fascinating hypothesis. It kinda makes me wish I still frequented Reddit, because it reminds me of conversations I've seen and even participated in on /r/auslaw about different legal systems (an interesting one: why America's encoded civil rights in the constitution directly help lead to the activist judicial system they see today, which itself is key to Trump's rising fascism, compared to another common law country where the constitution only lays out more basic, mundane things like how the number of Senators is calculated). I would love to see what more lawyers familiar with either system think about that point you make. It's a very intriguing one.

it is here

Are you absolutely certain? I've seen people claim that before and be wrong, because they were again confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. It could be a translation issue where the law against copyright infringement is sometimes translated as "plagiarism" despite not really fitting the English-language understanding of the difference between the two.

I couldn't find Niuean references to verify it in your case, but my comment was accurate under Australian, UK, Canadian, New Zealand, US, and EU law. It's possible some individual EU countries may differ, but not at the EU level, and certainly not in Slovakia, Germany, or France. So I am confident in using my comment as the general "default" assumption for discussions in English on international forums.