I can only draw from my French

Est-ce que Duolingo me menti?? Il accepte les deux… (/s)

Anyway, I figured “no to this specific war” was close enough, especially since he was in fact talking in the context of a specific war.

I was under the impression that “la” could act as an article as well as helping signify gender. My mistake.

But in that case, if you don’t want to “nobble” your translation, why not go for “in [three] words: no to war” instead? Translating the math definitely seems less “wonky” to me than annotating it with a long, awkward explanation.

Could just translate it “no to the war” instead of writing an explanation.

Surprisingly, most people aren’t actually suicidally negligent in the absence of government regulation.

Plus, your state is likely to conveniently fail your car on its next inspection

Your who is going to do what now?

(Posted from a state that doesn’t check anything except emissions, and even then only for some cars in some urban areas.)

I’m going by the plain language of the laws. It’s the copyright cartel shysters and the judicial system biased in their favor that are making shit up.

Copyright is an intellectual property right, firmly grounded in property law doctrine–you are probably thinking of trademark, which is rooted in consumer protection law, or likeness rights which have their roots in privacy law.

First of all, “Intellectual property[sic]” is a not a thing. There are copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, but they are all significantly different from each other. Trying to lump them together under a single term is disingenuous at best, and using the word “property” in that term is biased loaded language.

Second, copyright cannot be a property right because ideas cannot be property. In fact, ideas are essentially the opposite of property, as Thomas Jefferson once pointed out:

it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me.

What copyright actually is, is a temporary monopoly granted at the whim of Congress. It’s a license, not a right.

• A property right is a thing the owner is entitled to, and a natural right. In contrast, a copyright is an artificial construct invented as a power of Congress, and granted with the express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,” not because the creator of the work somehow deserved it.
• Ownership of a piece of property exists in perpetuity until it is sold and cannot be taken from the owner without “just compensation.” In contrast, copyright exists explicitly “for limited times” and then it expires and the work reverts to the Public Domain.

ITT: people misunderstanding the issue being ruled on (or rather, not being ruled on by letting the lower court decision stand).

If he had applied for copyright over the image generated using “AI” as a tool, it (edit: probably²) would have been granted, with him listed as the human author. But that’s not what he wanted. He’s apparently Hell-bent on trying to get the work registered in the name of the “AI” system itself as the author, to so that he can claim that the government recognized the “AI” as a sentient being that can own property hold a copyright¹ on its own behalf.

This is not the broad ruling against AI slop copyrightability that people think it is. It’s a ruling against “AI” personhood.

(¹ Copyright isn’t a property right, BTW)

(² He explicitly claimed he gave no creative contribution and that the work was created completely autonomously, and the court’s ruling included excluding that from being copyrightable. It is if he hadn’t done that – if he had claimed he had directed it via prompts or whatever – that I think they would have granted the copyright to him as the human author. It turns out that he changed his mind and did make that argument on appeal, but the court explicitly ignored and did not rule on it because it wasn’t raised in his initial complaint.)

In other words, it’s not that he as the human operating the “AI” is trying to claim copyright in his own name, it’s that he’s trying to set a precedent where the “AI” can hold copyright in its own name.

He’s trying to pretend that his glorified pile of statistics is sentient, and get it legally recognized as such. 🤡

You forgot about the part where the possibility of generating hydrogen cleanly from electricity later is used as an excuse to build infrastructure and fuel-cell cars for it now, even though hydrogen now is dirty hydrogen produced by cracking fossil fuels.

I have no confidence that the second phase of switching to electrolysis would actually happen, and that “the hydrogen economy” isn’t just a greenwashing scam perpetrated by natural gas producers.

'Cause it’s got layers!

There’s at least four different reasons this nonsense wouldn’t affect me, LOL. (I don’t use Facebook, don’t want Windows 11, don’t see ads because they’re blocked, and can’t run Windows malware because Linux.)