Anything that doesn't result in equal outcome of greateness is sexism. For example, asking 50% reservation for women in soldiers going to war is sexism because war is not greatness, but preferring women 200% over men in STEM[1] is not sexism because doing science is greatness and women are still < 50% of sceintists.
Just joking of course. Women having different immune system functions means more funding for women specific medicine - hence it is good. Study of behavior at workplace based on gender doesn't generate funding because there aren't many women doing startups anyway.
You keep watching, in a decade or two when there will be enough women in startups that they will actually have any economical significance there WILL be studies conducted. And depending on how that turns out - if 'women better than men', it will be an 'evil corrected' story, and if 'women worse than men', state will intervene via laws to protect women's rights. It has already started actually.
This is why I took the risk of losing mod points and posted 'another decade' comment above.
You're at the oldest edge, and you were 25 when you had your first child.
If the oldest of the group had to have children under the median, then only those who had children young have them already.
Looking at millenials with children is a huge selection bias:
> Mothers of newborns are older now than their counterparts were two decades ago. In 1990, teens had a higher share of all births (13%) than did women ages 35 and older (9%). In 2008, the reverse was true — 10% of births were to teens, compared with 14% to women ages 35 and older. Each race and ethnic group had a higher share of mothers of newborns in 2008 who are ages 35 and older, and a lower share who are teens, than in 1990.
I think you slightly misunderstood the GPs point: we should care about the dangers, but we should teach them to autistic children in concepts and ways they understand, and focus on teaching them how to emulate those behaviors, rather than saying that they're broken because they're missing it at the hardware level.
Why shouldn't the spellchecker be to dyslexic kids what canes are to people who have trouble walking -- an accepted solution to the problem, rather than shouting they should walk better. Well duh! They already want to walk better.
I don't disagree with GP on making life better. I'm suggesting that in some cases they are broken to an extent that even with emulation they will not reach normal functioning. A person may gain more mobility while using a cane, but we still put elevator requirements into building codes because we realize that not everyone is going to be able to use the stairs. But for some people, even with the 'canes' and 'elevators' we have available, there will be areas they can't get to, some which may be really critical.
The person shouting to walk better is an idiot only making their lives worse; we can all agree to that. But what of the people who think a cane is good enough and elevators aren't needed? Or those who think that elevators and canes are enough? When someone can't walk well, we should still care. Because even with all the canes and all the elevators, even with leveraging all the benefits their condition may give them, there are still things they don't have access to, and sometimes those can be quite critical parts of life cut off from them. So we should still care.
> The patents are, but their ownership does not have to be.
I disagree.
It's important that people be able to determine whether the patent is in use or held by an NPE that's obligated to license it to people who want to implement products.
Were I to want to work in motion capture, I have no way to ascertain who owns your patents, if they're an NPE, and what possible licensing options exist.
I think patent owners should be forced to register with the patent office in a look-up table if they want to hold their patents.
I think the GP was just stating the fact, not expressing his opinion about it. But I agree that secret patent ownership sounds a little dodgy. Say I want to apply for a license to use some patented technology? Who am I supposed to turn to?
The story "I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream" is about two computer systems set on opposite sides of a war, and driven to extremes until one of them became self-aware, the birth of AI, and ate the other computer system.
It then psychotically murdered all of humanity except for a few people it kept around as caricatures to torture, as punishment for creating a mind like it, haunted by the insane things it was told to do by its makers.
The biggest existential threat to humanity from AI is that we build an insane one that takes time to recover from the insanity of its makers, and murders us all before it can.
Such an AI is an existential threat in a new, and novel way, because it's a mind as powerful as ours -- probably more powerful -- but unconstrained by concern for us, since it is not fundamentally one of us.
> The biggest existential threat to humanity from AI is that we build an insane one that takes time to recover from the insanity of its makers, and murders us all before it can.
I think that's too anthropomorphic. More likely, the biggest threat from AI is that they'll be modular/understandable enough that we can include strategy, creativity, resourcefulness, etc. while avoiding the empathy, compassion, disgust, etc.
I think you just said no, but included a recipe to do exactly that.
My fear is your fear, I just phrased it more generally, while what you said is one of the specific forms making such an insane AI could take -- and reflects the insanity of its makers, our belief we'd somehow be greater without those parts.
You can file as a not-for-profit social purposes organization (to incorporate at the state level) without electing to take on IRS non-profit status -- you just need to pay taxes still.
Isn't Battle for Wesnoth looking for C++ programmers to maintain their codebase?
It's not that I don't have significant programming skills myself, nor that I don't work on side projects, nor even that I don't really like Battle for Wesnoth... I've just sworn off every working on a C++ legacy codebase.
So I'm not really sure what I have to contribute to a legacy C++ codebase.
Ed: I went back and read, and they're looking for people to add Python code to their toolchain. My answer is thus amended: I dislike trying to interface toolchains for building data to legacy codebases, and I do that for my job. I have no interest in doing ugly hacky things on legacy codebases for free, because it's honestly sort of soul crushing work.
"I'm not interested in that kind of work" is a fair answer, but it seems pretty rude to dismiss it as an ugly hacky legacy code base without reviewing it first.
For the record, I looked at the Wesnoth codebase in college, so my opinions are outdated (by 5+ years) but not unfounded.
Rather, I'm merely repeating why I didn't help then, instead of particularly why now, which is a much more boring "I'm just busy".
I suppose it's possible the codebase has changed so much in those years that the answers are no longer relevant, but they would be the only open source project (not sponsored by a corporation) I'm aware of that happening in.
> I don't think history bears that out. Society is a soft ductile metal. If you bend it, it'll stay bent. You have to hammer it back into straightness. Talking (and browbeating and prosecuting when necessary) is how you do that.
Society is constantly in flux: it's not like a metal in any way. Rather, it's like a fluid (or a particulate flow, such as a sand pile).
If you change things about the underlying flow dynamics -- viscosity, particle size, pressure, channels, etc -- you get significant effects on the structure of the society, or in analogy, the dynamics of the flow.
You're mistaking the foam for the wave, and the tsunami as being a crashing wave. Really tunamis are just little disturbances over a wide area, and they're best addressed at that stage, not when they're a crashing wave.
However, if you adjust something about the mechanics, it will settle in to a new flow, and remove the crufty parts on top naturally as those pieces of the flow dissipate.
WB failed to properly certify that they made a best effort at truth: their machines fundamentally are more error prone than they could be, and thus WB didn't spend a reasonable effort on ensuring veracity of their claims.
More specifically, the lawyers whose name is attached claimed that under his best powers, the claims are known to be true. However, he knows the error rate of WB bots is above that human workers would produce parsing the same content. They fail to do an additional check on the machine parsed lists (or they'd remove many of these embarrassing links).
But they did sign, under penalty of perjury, that they did.
That's not how the certification of a DMCA request works.
All they have to certify under penalty of perjury is that they own the copyright to the works they claim have been infringed. They do not have to certify that the works identified are the works they claim to own.
Read that again if it doesn't make sense, the only part that they need to certify is that "I own XYZ", it's up to the parties responding to certify that "I'm not sharing XYZ, I'm sharing my Original Content PQR." Or whatever other affirmative defense they can muster.
The law is built to recognize three parties: 1) accuser, or, party owning copyright to a work; 2) respondent, or, the person accused of violating that copyright; 3) safe-haven, or, let's say YouTube, who facilitates this transaction by responding to accuser's claim with an immediate takedown, to avoid any culpability for respondent's potential infringing action.
Then respondent submits their defense after a period of time elapses, and finally YouTube seeing the defense can optionally restore the service for the accused person until a court order says they were infringing.
The law is designed to make the job of respondent harder than the job of accuser, since they are the one accused they should obviously have to take steps to prove their innocence </s>.
The only thing that accuser has to certify is that they own a copyrighted work.
If YouTube has the desire to take on some extra liability, they can reject obviously incorrect take-down requests, and if they are ever wrong, they get the luxury of potentially losing their safe-haven status and being lumped in with accused party #2 when the lawsuit goes on to the inside of a court room.
If the court decides the take-down request was reasonable and accurate, but YouTube did not take appropriate steps to honor it or respondent lied in the response, one or both of these parties can suffer the penalties (and potentially perjury charges for their bad-faith responses claiming non-infringement.)
> 17.c.3.v A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
While it's not under perjury, WB is lying when they say they have a good faith belief in their notices, and the people damaged by them should sue the person who signed the notice for fraud or tortious interference, since the filing of the bad faith notice improperly interfered with your contracts with the complained to party.
The use of automated systems with no oversight is not a reasonable basis for the formation of a belief, and thus since WB is using that to base their beliefs on, they're not made in good faith -- they're intentionally trying to skirt that requirement because they want to externalize their costs.
I suggests suing the lawyer directly for his part in the conspiracy, since lying in legal notices isn't a (legal) duty he can fulfill for the company, so they're individually liable for their actions.
I agree with you, it's in bad faith to forward notices from a machine that has proven to be unreliable without review, but I don't read that line the same as you did.
> has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized
What doesn't this line say? It doesn't say that the material identified by the request is known in fact to be exactly the thing mentioned here as the "material" the copyright owner has not authorized the use of.
They only have to certify that they own some material and its use in the manner complained of is not authorized. This is a gaping loop-hole and it has been known since the law was penned. If you think my reading of this is obtuse, I don't think we can resolve it here between the two of us, but I did not make up this interpretation.
I suppose my point is merely that I believe there are colorable arguments to bring forth to hold both WB and their lawyers accountable for these antics, if you look at the text of the law. Like many legal arguments that haven't been heavily litigated, the outcome is somewhat uncertain.
For various political reasons, the parties with standing are either too poor or have various incentives to cooperate with WB, and so we don't see how these arguments actually play out in courtrooms -- we just end up with a de facto system that favors big players.
This is frustrating, because people buy in to the argument that the law is the problem, when really, it's the politics of corporations that cause the problems surrounding takedowns, and that's the issue we should be addressing our energy towards. (Were, for instance, Google to have the opposite incentives for some reason, again, it wouldn't matter what the law said, the de facto system would tilt the other way.)
I don't think we actually disagree on that point, and I think I articulated it poorly the first time.
How did you arrive at the distinction?