20 to 30 years would ensure that abandoned media that was formative to a person growing up will enter the public domain within their lifetimes which would be a nice thing to have in my opinion. It would also ensure that any work done by an artist during the early phase of their career (the phase where artists are most likely to agree to lopsided contract terms) would stand a chance of reverting back to the public domain before the end of that artist's career. Very very few works are making any significant revenue after 30 years. I think a system where initial copyright is free for 20 years, with the option of renewing for an additional 10 years for some fee, and then the option to renew annually after that would be fair. For the very small number of works that are still commercially viable after 30 years, the publishers can figure out how long it makes sense to keep renewing the copyright. Otherwise it really is in the public's best interest to have a robust public domain. Many fewer works would go missing that way.
The way the copyright is structured right now is the result of regulatory capture. The cost of these long terms of copyright is the loss of books, movies, music, games, etc. Millions upon millions of hours of creative labor have been lost. These costs are born by everybody that will never have to chance to have access to that media. The benefits of these long copyright terms are only the publishers. Having an annual renewal fee for copyrighted works published 30 or more years ago would be something that would be a visible cost in the books of large publishers. As it is it is too easy for them to ignore the downsides of long terms of copyright. I am not claiming that no media would be lost if we had no copyright, but the efforts of archivists are difficult enough as it is. Media that is no longer being copied is destroyed eventually. Obviously making it a felony to copy something will reduce the number of people making copies of it. That's the whole point after all.
Sure the SLS is a total mess, but from what I understand, there wasn't ever really a concrete plan on how to use SpaceX rockets to actually get to the moon. The following video is a presentation given at a NASA meeting explaining the issue.
Yeah, if you think about it, this is a "discrimination" deeply enbedded in pretty much every language - or at least languages with European roots, not sure about others: "right" always has positive connotations (being right, human rights, words like "dexterity" etc.) while "left" has negative ones (not as often, but often enough, like the "sinister" mentioned by the other comment).
I often wonder if it would be best for English to lose grammatical gender entirely. Encoding assumptions about gender is leading to endless debates about pronouns which other languages avoid entirely.
it shows a few definitions of "sinister" in Latin that seem contradictory. "left", "perverse/bad", but "auspicious" for Romans, while "inauspicious" for Greeks. And a Proto-Indo-European source which is positive.
The PIE source is positive, because it was applied as a euphemism in Latin to what would have been laevus (cf. Greek λαιός), from the PIE word for "left." The Greeks, too, preferred euphemism to the direct term for "left": the much more common term ἀριστερά ("left") is a constrastive/comparative derived from ἄριστος, "best," so it means the "bester side."
For what it's worth, the entire Lichess corpus of puzzles (over five million positions with solutions and theming tags) is available for download in CSV format at https://database.lichess.org/#puzzles
I downloaded this and wrote a small program to filter on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 move puzzles. I also segregated by rating. Then I ran them thru stockfish (there are some errors) and generated several years worth of daily puzzles. It’s part of a daily chess feed I have for my club. So, puzzles get harder thru the week, similar to NY times crossword puzzles. I uploaded this to my cheapo web server. I give credit to lichess and provide a link to play the position on the lichess.org website.
That's a nice ideal. I honestly kind of agree with you in the sense that I wish that was how things were. But in my view, it's easier to think about the police as a force whose primary purpose is to enforce the property rights of the capital holding class. In the United States there have been court rulings clarifying that police officers are never obligated to risk their lives.
If you look at the actual numbers, at least in the US, policing can really only be viewed as a risky profession from a white-collar point of view. According to OSHA, construction workers, truck drivers, farmers, and even pilots all have a greater likelihood of dying on the job.
I agree that's both the historical basis and continued reality of what policing is in the US (and also probably elsewhere). It's interesting to see how quickly and ravenously cops respond to businesses calling in reports, and crimes associated to the wealthy and powerful. Meanwhile someone can call the cops about their neighbor beating a spouse and they'll never show up and seem annoyed when they want to make a report.
What about ignoring due process while doing so? Is that, in your view, in line with the constitution? If it is, what recourse does a US citizen detained by ICE (either accidentally or not) have? Also, how do you view Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship via Executive Order? Birthright citizenship is in the 14th Amendment. If the president is allowed to arbitrarily redefine who is and is not a citizen, are constitutional protections anything more than ink on paper?
Things started getting tricky at level 7. I can see that level 8 is solvable, but I'm not going to have time to solve it before leaving for work. Neat little puzzle.
Even if it turns out not to be the perfect solution, it might turn out that this kind of measurement might be useful for things like estimating the effectiveness of medication and other medical interventions, or even lifestyle changes. Imagine if this kind of thing could be turned into a medical device. Many people who end up committing suicide have had previous suicidal episodes. Being able to have a technology that people with known suicidal tendencies can use to help keep tabs on their own mental health could potentially be as useful to them as blood sugar monitoring is to diabetics.
