Mohamed

This is irrelevant because Meta should not be tried for this the same as a private individual would be.

The case for torrenting being illegal for private individuals is one or both of:

1. Downloading in of itself is stealing.
2. Uploading is giving unauthorized access to someone else who otherwise might have had a harder time finding it. Anything else, such as watching, reading, listening, learning, etc. is not illegal (or does not make sense to make illegal). The exception might be publishing. This is rare for private individuals (e.g. using pirated FL studio to make a commercial song).

For corporations, a lot change. Firstly, a corporation downloading a torrent is necessarily making unauthorized material available for some people of the company. It’s like a group of 20 friends all downloaded and uploaded to each other. Secondly, they used this copyrighted material commercially (like playing pirated music in a public night club). Both should be illegal.

However, all of this is still a distraction. The real issue is using copyrighted materials to train commercial AI. Does Meta require permission from copyright holders to make AI based on their work? The law is grey on this, and desperately needs regulations.

Just my thoughts.

What is? What do you mean?

Except for 0, 1, 2, 3.

Integers are necessarily irrational because π is transcendental and not an algebraic number.

Just thinking out loud here.

I disagree with being able to opt out of being quoted, but I agree that one should be able to opt out of having their account visible in the the Quote Post. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what a Quote Post is supposed to be? I am thinking of it as a way to share someone else’s post, but also verifying the the quote wasnt just made up.

I would think, in the US, antitrust laws would apply.

Is this different from Intel and x86 architecture? (Genuinely asking)

No criteria. Everyone gets the same exact stipend, whether they have 0$ to their name or 1 billion dollars. Its not necessary for UBI to not have criteria, but it should, because:

1. No criteria means its much cheaper, theoretetically, to administer it.
2. There’s no weird “subsidy” issues. For instance, if only jobless get UBI, then UBI might incentivize people to not get work.
3. It may feel weird to give billionaires the same stipend, but it doesnt really matter. In the US, for instance, less than 1% make more than 1 million dollars a year (or was it less than 1% have less assets than 1 million?). That means, stopping paymwnts for those people would reduce the cost by no more than 1%, theoretically. Of course, it could be targetted towards another bracket, say 50000$. Im not sure, but i suspect that it would still be cheaper to give it to everyone, assuming the removal of checks to greatly reduce the cost of administering it.
4. Further to point 3, giving everyone the same amount could (arguably) make it seem more fair to most people.

Why wouldnt it affect Tesla as much?

Check out Anna’s Archive.

I think its in reference to Canadians (British at the time) setting fire to the White House in the, 19th century I think?

I agree that that’s useful information. I wonder though, if it is that useful, if Lemmy or the Lemmy app does that automatically?

I suspect that mental health and social support at home play huge roles here.