"Copying is theft" is the argument of corporations for ages, but if they want our data and information, to integrate into their business, then, suddenly they have the rights to it.
If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software and AI models, as well, since it is available on the open web.
They got themselves into quite a contradiction.
You can rotate F 180 degrees and plug it in.
No, publicly traded. One of the first steps to enshittyfication.
Maybe someone can explain to me why Winamp is still so popular?
I have used Winamp 2, 3 and 5 around 2000ish, and it was a fine player, but nothing really special. After Winamp I think I switched to MediaMonkey, which IMO was easier to manage my music collection. Then I used VirtualDJ, which supported cross fading between music with synchronized beats. I think I also used foobar2000 a bit.
Winamp was an okayish player, but there was much more powerful software around at that time. It this just nostalgics or is there really something that people miss today that Winamp provided or still provides?
You don't know what a "monopoly" is.
What the author is probably searching for is "vendor-lockin", which is an anticompetitive practice for so long that it became the way many companies rely their business on. It favors established products over new-comers by making switching offerings difficult/expensive or even impossible, thus better products often have no chance of competing in a field, that was dominated by a single supplier for a while.
IMO there should be strict regulations and high fines associated with it, because it hinders innovation massively across all industries.
The cost of switching away from github for a project is high, but not as high as in other fields.
I noticed if the TV was off or on (muted and black screen) without looking at it, but my parents did not.
The AI part is what makes this fuck up special and international news.
We are used to human fuck ups, but a in person event where the organizers where so lazy that they used AI to create the content and that it sucked is something novel.
AI generated pictures, blogs and books are old news, generated in person events is new.
The poster is funny, but apart of the outrage that is causes by some, I think that it could trigger a good discussion.
For instance about how toxic masculinity also hurts men. Under that men are considered weak if they cry and should consider themselves be 'lucky' when they are raped.
And how feminism can help against this as well.
The question is who is the other Democrat candidate? I have the impression that putting fourth a popular candidate goes against everything the DNC stands for.
If you want highly skilled teachers, expect to pay wages and compensations for highly skilled workers.
At that point we get a tag system. Content Warning: politics, Content Warning: bad news, Content Warning: dangerous cuteness...
No, it is consistent. Because it is not about the law itself, but about it being applied in a double standard. If a random person copies a product made by an industry, the law will punish them. If the industry copies work of random people, its fine and a sign of progress.
I would like a copyright to be nontransferable, bound to the individuals that created it, and limited for about 10 years or so (depending on what it is), to give the creators some way to earn a reward back, while also encouraging to create new stuff.