Shooting people isn’t a constitutionally enumerated right of the office of the president

She’d have to order one of her executive employees to do it

Health insurance companies sure seem like socialized healthcare but with some rich guys that steal money out of the pot

The way I see it, creatives lose no matter what here, so they can either lose and only the corpos benefit, or they can lose and everyone benefits

OpenAI losing their case is how we ensure that the only people who can legally be in charge of an LLM are massive corporations with enough money to license sufficient source material for training, so I’m forced to begrudgingly take their side here

“The three biggest social media sites on the internet are nothing but screenshots of the other two” is how I heard the last 10 years described

Depending on how important these large language models end up being to society, I’d rather everyone be able to freely use copyrighted works to train them, rather than reserve their use solely for the corporations rich enough to pay for the licensing or lucky enough to already have the rights to a trove of source material

OpenAI losing this battle is how we ensure that the only people that can legally train these things are the Microsofts, Googles, and the Adobes of the world so, bizarrely, as much as I think OpenAI has turned into greedy corpo scum, I feel compelled to side with them here

Arguing with someone, within the confines of the marketplace of ideas, about how the marketplace of ideas should be abolished, is a fools errand

If they refuse to even agree to the basic social ground rules of discourse whatever they have to say isn’t even worth entertaining

Every single one of your upvotes on lemmy is already public due to how the protocol works, it’s just currently obscured by a bit of work to get them (have to run your own instance, assuming there already isn’t some online tool to easily look them up)

Making them publicly and easily visible would only remove the illusion of privacy we currently have, not actually make your upvote logs less secured in any way

We already had first Microsoft anti-trust suit, but what about second Microsoft anti-trust suit?

Every browser is either chromium (open source captured by Google) or exists because of a Google search contract (this represents 80% of Mozilla’s revenue), Google can’t lose

Chrome really needs to be broken off from Google, the largest ad company owning the largest browser is clearly a huge conflict of interest

Seeing that half of my extensions (it was seriously like 10 of them) were going to be disabled is what pushed me to finally switch to Firefox because if I have to find alternatives to them it might as well be on another browser

Russian tank -> Ukrainian scrap metal

Married Russian woman -> Widowed Lada owner

We’re supposed to be evolving into a more free society… this is just going backwards.

You have discovered the great fallacy, the presumption that democracy and freedom are the natural course of things: they are not. Every single inch of it we have was taken by force from kings and dictators, and they’re always waiting in the shadows for their opportunity to take it back.

The peace dividend created by the end of the cold war has unfortunately made an entire generation of people who believe this fallacy, this is one of the glaring reminders that it’s not true. Democracy and freedom are things that must be actively maintained in perpetuity by everyone who wants them, we must be ready and willing to use all four boxes of democracy (soap, ballot, jury, AND ammo) to defend it for the rest of our lives. We must educate, we must vote, we must nullify unjust laws, and we must arm ourselves, because at the end of the day, violence is the one enforcement method that everyone is forced to listen to. It doesn’t matter how right you are if the other side has more people willing to kill and die for their cause than yours does, so we better damn well make sure that’s not the case.

The ruling more or less explicitly states that Biden could go on national television, say “Won’t someone rid me of these troublesome justices?”, have them assassinated, and face no legal repercussions because using the bully pulpit is covered by presidential immunity

This is true and public knowledge though as I said (details seen here in the “Steam Key Rules and Guidelines” section), if anything Valve is giving devs a lot of leeway by allowing them to do that at all, not only are they giving up their 30% cut but are also then distributing and committing to updating those copies of the game for free

This suit seems to just be vaguely, “30% is too high”, along with requiring that DLC for a game bought on Steam also be bought on Steam, it was the Wolfire case back in 2021 that alleged they’re not allowed to sell their game for cheaper on other platforms

As far as I know, this only applies to Steam keys: developers are allowed to generate Steam keys for free to sell on their website (Valve does not get 30% of these sales either) with the restriction being they cannot be cheaper than the price on Steam

I don’t think there’s ever actually been any proof that Valve disallows selling games for cheaper elsewhere as long as you’re not selling those freely generated Steam keys

Why would NATO have any say in if they accept or not? What would the threat be if they do, they stop providing them with arms and ammunition? Surely, if Russia is indeed so benevolent, Ukraine wouldn’t need them going forward in this hypothetical peace?

Sorry but most people don’t read Pravda