Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.

I get what they’re saying, but unless the baker is also growing, harvesting and milling the wheat himself, they’ll have to share with 1 to 3 others as well, right?

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn’t mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.

You can require everyone to maintain their own blocklist, sure. But new users won’t benefit from it. Making every single person individually investigate and judge every single bad user/community doesn’t seem practical?

People don’t say “I call for the destruction of Israel”, they say stuff like “A state that does that shouldn’t exist” or “let’s create a nation in which the Palestinians can live peacefully”. These are ‘calls’ for the end of the current government structure of Israel, or in other words, the destruction of the Israeli state.

The wording of the rule is purposely vague and broad, while still sounds like it is banning something harmful.

People are being specific, but the rule itself is broad. If you say “everyone involved in the genocide should be removed from office”, that’s specific, clear, broadly agreeable, and yet also ‘calling for the destruction of the Israeli state’.

They are used in the majority of European languages, including French. You might see them natively in Canadian-English written by the French speaking part.

Furthermore, because they are used in ~41 different languages, someone using a keyboard layout in that language will get that character, even if the key they press is labeled with an " icon.

Lastly, you should know that Breton (the language/culture that Great Britain is named after) uses them. Not actually directly relevant, but it does show a direct lineage of using guillemets in English. (And also it’s a neat fact).

If you want a simple explanation why he couldn’t spy:

Imagine that your internet traffic is a bunch of letters. HTTP are postcards. You can read the message and destination both. HTTPS are envelopes. You cannot read the message, but you can see the destination.

When using VPN, you stick every letter/postcard in another envelope, addressed to the VPN company’s address. They unpack the letter, set themselves as the return address, and send it on.

Your friend could previously look at the outside of your letters, and see who you’re sending to, and how much. Now, they can only see you’re sending to the VPN company, which isn’t helpful. (In theory, they can see the volume of data, but there isn’t much they can learn with just that).

The brackets thing is a real and well-known dogwhistle. If I say that the (((city council))) is putting chemicals in the water, then you should know I’m touting an anti-semetic conspiracy theory.

In this case, using «Guillemets» isn’t that, but the thing that they confused it for is real.

Every rule has a back story. You can easily imagine a bunch of kids yelling at each other as they bike down the street. But you cannot make a sign that says “punk kids not allowed”.

You can see the left candle stick, but not the right one. This is despite the fact that the reflection should be transposed left (like the clock in the middle). In other words, the reflection is wrong, which isn’t immediately obvious, but gives an ‘off’ vibe.

It depends what you mean by ‘security’. Obviously, by introducing more layers, you have more places where exploits can life. However, the biggest threat by orders of magnitude is being tricked into giving stuff up, and that risk will remain constant.

Non-human, uncaring machines who amass and hoard wealth beyond human comprehension honestly doesn’t sound any different than what we have now.

Ah ok. That’s not how I understood your comment initially, but that’s reasonable.

Even if we can’t, should we not try? It’s only, as you say, a few thousand. We can spare the resources to keep them locked up/under house arrest/whatever for the rest of their natural lives if we must.

If we must execute people to heal the wounds inflicted by their sheer callousness, then so be it. But I don’t really accept the argument that anyone is “irredeemable” without even trying.

These two graphs cover different time periods. It looks like the monetization of X lines up with that hump of sharply increased knife crime at the end there.

What, do you think, would be the worst material from which to build a trebuchet and have it still function?

What are the chances that visiting Steven Hawking is the most interesting/fun thing you can do, if you could freely time travel? I’d much rather go look at dinosaurs, or visit the construction of the pyramids, or go listen to Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech.

Even if my goal was to meet a single scientist, I think I’d personally pick any other. Pliny the Elder, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein…

Not to be rude to Mr. Hawking (well, maybe he deserves it, I don’t know what got him in to the Epstein files…), but a thorougly average party is simply not likely to attract very many time travellers.

Whenever you enter a new (sub-)culture, you have to learn the social norms. Some people have an easier time, others have a harder time. There’s not much advice we can give you, since every culture is different. Some value privacy, others openness and honesty. Some communicate stuff via head nods, others by how far you stand away, and others by pitching the tone of their voices.

You will learn too, but it will take lots of exposure and trying. Some people will dislike you for not understanding, others will be forgiving. How much you should make allowances and whether it makes sense to tell them that you are autistic depends on their specific culture and personalities. So, uh, good luck.

note: (sub-)culture here does not mean only the nation you’re in, but it can change group-to-group. Essentially it’s the vibe that a group has.

It’s not really “know as 過労死” in Japanese. That’s just the words for “excess”, “work”, and “death”. That’s kinda like saying “it’s known as ‘overworking to death’ in Britain”.

So do goats, but they’re plenty tasty.