Big business doesn't pay more for better, but the do pay more for predictability, support and targeted outcomes. They will happily trade a chance at 100% better results for 10% less chance of unplanned outcomes
Full agree - and I've adopted a similar reading strategy. Full read of first and last chapters, skim the rest and should be done in no more than an hour. If there's a systems diagram or algorithm you want to dig into, make a note and maybe do that later.
Most of these books should be blog posts; ironically (?) the ones that were blog posts extended into full books tend to be the better ones!
1984 and brave New world make a good duo read, presenting distopyian futures from very different causes. Until about 2016 it looked like Huxley was right, but Orwell has had a surge in the past 10 years!
The stories in A river runs through it - and the movie - move at a slower pace than modern life, but then sometimes hit at just the right place when that's exactly what I need.
This book made me start focusing on flows vs stocks, a distinction humans tend to get backwards and the make several related mistakes.
The book gets some valid criticism, but it's a primer and a good one at that.
Content rights are micro managed too, unlike ever before so you get things like a streaming service buying a title in one language but not the one you want. This doesn't stop them from returning it in your search results though
I watched Star Trek TNG on Netflix like four times.
I have never subscribed to Paramount+ and people who liked TNG are saying things that make me think that was the right choice. I just don't watch TNG anymore. That's fine, it's not like content is scarce. Good content is somewhat scarce, but there's decades of known good history to dig through.
They have to destroy the copy either way for it to be fair use (according to Bartz v Anthropic). Cutting the bindings off is already the faster method to scan, and once you're required to pulp the original anyway, it becomes a no-brainer.
The relevant part of the ruling starts on page 27.
For the print library copies that Anthropic purchased and then converted into digital library copies, Anthropic already enjoyed entitlement to keep the copies in its library. The purpose of the copying was to keep them in its library but with more favorable storage and searchability properties. Copying the entire work was exactly what this purpose required. There was no surplus copying. The source copy was destroyed.
The third fair use factor favors fair use for the purchased library copies converted from print to digital.
Fair use favors the destruction to avoid accidental surplus copying of the source material. It doesn't require it. If Anthropic put everything in a warehouse, they could keep it in the warehouse... but they couldn't do anything with them afterwards. They couldn't sell them as books or donate them as that would mean that it wasn't fair use and copyright infringement would have taken place once that additional copy was distributed again. At that point, fair use and economics both favor destroying the original.
If I make a DVD copy of an old VHS tape that I own, that's fair use format shifting. I can keep the VHS tape without issue. I cannot donate it to the library or put it out in a garage sale. When I got rid of my VHS player, I threw out VHS tapes too since they were of no use and only cluttered my shelf.
reply