Not really, since it’s now public knowledge that the entirety of Trump-positive media is bankrolled by the Kremlin.

One is a Russian asset intent on destroying America from within; the other is Kamala Harris. Your eyes must be getting real bad to not see that.

He washes his paws in bowls

That’s adorable 😂 Such a hygienic boy!

busting hundreds for the odd file you can prove they downloaded is expensive and takes forever.

And might well not be legally possible if all you have is an IP address, because lest we forget:

An IP is not an ID

There are alarm clocks that have a lamp built in, and instead of a loud alarm they play things like birdsong and rushing water at increasing volumes while brightening up the lamp to simulate dawn. I much prefer that to a nuclear launch siren, when I have to use an alarm. I don’t like to post shopping links because I’m not an ad machine, but if you search around for “gentle wakeup alarm light” you’ll definitely find some.

it is a somewhat strange indictment that my warning about deepfakes and doctored videos would in itself constitute Russian disinformation.

Has anyone told him he can preface sharing things like this with a joke or snarky comment, to make it clear the information is good but from a shit source? “Even a total asshole of a broken clock can be right twice a day” or something might be sufficient.

deleted by creator

No :P

For what?

I think selling such skulls would be highly unethical.

Would you? Why? FWIW I agree that as long as there’s a living person who cares about the fate of the bones then selling them would be unethical, I’m just curious as to your specific reasons - like, what is the hypothetical you’re imagining, behind this statement? Are you contending it would be unethical even if nobody living cares, just due to the provenance? I can see why you would object if the former user of the anatomy believed in the sanctity of remains, for example.

I’m not sure I’d agree, but I’m not sure I’d disagree either. I’d need to think on it more. Right now, I’m leaning towards respecting the wishes of the dead as far as their remains go, because the universe is big and cruel and the only kindnesses are those we make for each other, so why shouldn’t that extend as far as we do?

I think you don’t understand the difference between fundamental rights and regular old rights. A right does not have to be fundamental to be a right.

And, if copyright law were about encouraging creation, it would not restrict the use of other peoples’ work.

Would you do me a favour? Read back over this thread until you realise you just argued creation is “encouraged” by a category of law which only restricts the use of other peoples’ work, including modifying it to create derivative works, and has been used as a club against creation to boot. Consider, how does Nintendo kill Smash tourneys? How many YouTube videos have been wrongly DMCA’d?

That’s crazy! At my job, I just help our users. I don’t have to build (and then maintain) infrastructure with them.

I regularly fix my bashrc file with Notepad. I run it in Wine because I cbf to RealVNC from my Windows CE media server.

(n.b: None of this is real, I wrote it to upset people, I’m sorry)

Yes, and at wholesale rates it’s a pretty good bang-for-your-buck, as an advertising scheme. Advertising is a numbers game about getting as many eyeballs as possible on the product, and I know I actively check for free games on the Epic launcher most weeks. Even if I don’t ever buy anything because of that specifically, it keeps the app on my computer and keeps me checking back in.

Edit: And I shit you not I just opened it to check 'cause I can’t remember if I looked at this week’s free game. Turns out it’s a good thing I did too, the Fallout collection is free right now!

(dammit, see what I mean?)

No, it is not. Copyright law ensures the original creator gets paid for their work and nobody can imitate it (quite literally “the right to copy”) without permission. Copyright law is about making money.

Heritage law is about preserving history.

Ehh, I halfway agree, but there is value in keeping historical stuff around. Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn’t get erased by developers looking to turn a quick buck or rich people who think that 500 year old castle could really use an infinity pool hot tub; there are strict requirements for a building to be heritage-listed but once they are, the owner is required by law to maintain it to historical standards.

I only halfway disagree because you’re right, forcing people to pay for something has never sat right with me generally. As long as the laws don’t bite people like you and me, e.g. there are relatively high requirements for something to be considered “culturally relevant” enough to preserve, I’d be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.

How much could one milk cost? Ten dollars?

Sometimes, a shitpost is so shit but also so very post that I get trapped in a whirlpool of knowing it should be upvoted, but not wanting to. Congratulations?

deleted by creator

From the extract alone I can tell this is either AI slop or so badly written as to be no better.