There's a saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words".
Regarding poetry, while I share your sentiment, what I notice in these discussions is that the emotional response to "done by AI" vs. "done by human" (or, on other forums, "done by furry") counts for a lot.
So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people.
I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone.
Thus, it really seems like there's a solid point here that abandoning copyright to allow private investors to get rich stealing art from other rich people who really just stole it from poor people anyways is better than not doing that.
> So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people.
I did not propose that any rich people profit off of it. It should be a public good.
> I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone.
Throw it at universities, fund it and organize it well. They can take it from where we are right now.
What could possibly go wrong giving the same government that is currently deleting information from websites including references to the “Enola Gay” control over models?
The current regime is in a fascist power grab and you're both-sidsing some random-ass second lady from a generation ago? Yeah wonder why we can't have effective government.
> Let’s just not give the government any more power in our lives than necessary.
Let's stop giving corporations all of the power and get a government that actually works for us.
It doesn’t matter. You should never trust the government with more power than absolutely necessary.
Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like.
This is the government people voted for.
The government has a “monopoly on violence”. No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeiture). I can much more easily avoid a corporation than the government.
> No corporation can force you to do anything, take away your freedom (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any democracy) or your property (see civil forfeiture). I can much more easily avoid a corporation than the government.
Avoid Tesla, and give me the steps you follow.
> Because eventually, the other side will do something you don’t like.
Yeah they might do equally egregious things like:
1) staging a fascist takeover of the government
2) a powerless idiot's idiot wife might dislike a music genre 30 years ago
The problem isn't government, it's a populace that is alergic to useful government.
You’re overindexing on Trump. The US being a police state with the highest incarceration rate in the world, police corruption, civil forfeiture, etc didn’t start with Trump.
Tell me one corporation that you can’t get away from? Now tell me how you avoid an over powerful government?
Why would you want to give a government with the history of the US more power?
Trump was elected fair and square. If you want to blame anyone - blame Americans. Despite the bullshit that the Democrats spout about “this isn’t who we are”. This is exactly who we are. Why would I want to give the government more control? Do you think the Democrats would be any more hands off when it comes to content?
> Trump was elected fair and square. If you want to blame anyone - blame Americans. Despite the bullshit that the Democrats spout about “this isn’t who we are”. This is exactly who we are.
I blame, primarily, the corporate takeover of government, punctuated by Citizen's United and everything that came after, and a couple of generations of a Republican party who have no goal other than setting out to prove that government is the enemy to take the heat off of their corporate masters.
> Tell me one corporation that you can’t get away from? Now tell me how you avoid an over powerful government?
I already did: avoid Tesla, show me how it's done. You can't, because the asshole in charge bought enough of the government to be in control. That's what happens when you have corporations with unchecked power, which is the inevitible conclusion of a powerless government.
You think you give the corporations all of the money and they're going to be bound by some tiny neutered government? No, they'll just buy it and then do what they want.
> I blame, primarily, the corporate takeover of government, punctuated by Citizen's United and everything that came after
Try again, Trump famously didn’t have much corporate backing in 2016. Corporations wanted a standard Republican. He didn’t have any more money than the DNC. He is what the majority of the American people wanted.
> You think you give the corporations all of the money and they're going to be bound by some tiny neutered government?
Again, tell me how a corporation can shoot me with impunity, take my property without due process, literally take away my freedom or stop me because I “fit the description” or look like I don’t belong in a neghborhood where I know I my income was twice the median income in the county?
You worry about some theoretical abstract corporate power, I worry about jack booted thugs with the full force of the government behind them
> Try again, Trump famously didn’t have much corporate backing in 2016. Corporations wanted a standard Republican. He didn’t have any more money than the DNC. He is what the majority of the American people wanted.
I thought you said it didn't start with Trump?
And your premise is wrong anyway, Trump had plenty of corporate support in 2016 and more in 2024, he just had some token resistance from big corps relative to others, they got over it quickly and it was never more than just for show.
> Again, tell me how a corporation can shoot me with impunity, take my property without due process, literally take away my freedom or stop me because I “fit the description” or look like I don’t belong in a neghborhood where I know I my income was twice the median income in the county?
By just doing it, what you think they can't find guns and assholes who need money or are evil? You think they can't find ways to cheat you out of your property or life? Who's going to stop them?
You tear down the government, the corporations will make their own in their own image. The government is _supposed_ to be there, it's the people coming together to do the shared work of society for the common good.
It just has to be a good government, the people have to fight for that. Half of our people fight to tear it down instead and the other half barely know what the hell they want.
> You worry about some theoretical abstract corporate power, I worry about jack booted thugs with the full force of the government behind them
They're the same people. Look at our government. Theoretical abstract, what are you talking about, it's the literal nazi shithead in the whitehouse and all the rest of his enablers.
I've looked up why before, tldr it's just because historically astronomers have never had to care in any detail about chemical reactions (this is not strictly true of course, but somewhat close for at least a large subset). So they just need a term for "crap that came from stars".
Eh, that grosses over the defining difference that hydrogen, helium, and a little bit of lithium are everywhere everywhen all at once because of The Bog Bang, whereas everything else is concentrated due to being produced in supernovas and neutron stars.
Well, it doesn't apply to either JWST or the subject of the article, so kind of feels like it's worth mentioning.
It doesn't change your specific, exact point (about previous cooling systems you were aware of), but it makes the conversation a lot less likely to confuse people IMO.
From what I recall the main narrative was "it's neck and neck but we could be a single polling misstep from a blowout in either direction" which is about as safe a stance as you can take (understandable considering the blowback they got previously).
More to the point the polls do not predict who wins the election because the election is won by the electoral college, not by the popular vote. Even if you got the popular vote exact you still couldn't predict the election accurately.
What you have to do is simulate all the states and DC and run a monte carlo simulation and you will always get an equivocal answer if you do that.
> polls do not predict who wins the election because the election is won by the electoral college, not by the popular vote
Which is why any model worth its salt only uses national polls to predict state results. (State polls are more meaningful. But the headlines they generate aren't as nationally clickable.)
Unfortunately there are too many states and not enough polls to make a model based on state-level polls so you have to infer state-level results based on something other than state-level polls.
> there are too many states and not enough polls to make a model based on state-level polls
There aren’t that may states. You don’t need partisan polling in Vermont and Wyoming, for example.
> you have to infer state-level results based on something other than state-level polls
Yes. As I said. That is what you use national polls. “But the electoral college” isn’t a valid argument against election models. The reality is paucity of granular data and complexity of predicting swing states.
I think they probably meant the opposite. There's an statistics-illiterate subreddit for FiveThirtyEight, which largely refused to believe any poll that said that Kamala was going to lose, and heavily pushed any poll that reinforced the idea that Kamala would come out ahead.
Thanks for catching that. Amusingly, it looks like we did make the same mistake. Completely unintentional on my part, but I've fixed it now. That first mentioned of "win" was meant to be "lose".
Have people not noticed that Trump seems to habitually make hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements?
Like it’s not doing him any favors, I tend to feel it’s some kind of personality defect.
Though it did get him a lot of attention in the past, which substantially led to him becoming president.
Either he can’t turn it off, or the decade plus of increasingly internet centric media exposure among the general population just selected for a guy who had obvious populist but not too radical views and also makes ridiculous statements to get attention.
Greenland will not be taken by force. The reminder of a possibility of force may be used as leverage in the negotiation. The messaging is kind of whacky, but it would make sense to broadcast the threat widely to achieve credibility. Like “he’s so crazy he might just pull the trigger”.
I have a lot of experience with this kind of person. I personally will bet real money that the US has troops in Greenland within a year, and is claiming it as US territory.
In my experience, the ‘personality defect’ you are thinking of is what many folks would call ‘malignant narcissistic personality disorder’. He only wants Greenland because someone once told him he couldn’t have it, and it gets him attention every time he brings it up.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he has no actual idea what Greenland actually is like, and has never visited it. He might even be confused between Iceland and Greenland, if you asked him to point to Greenland on an unlabeled map.
Plenty of other people though would benefit from the strife created by him actually taking it, or from him being happy with them by actually getting it for him, so I expect there are active plans in motion right now to invade Greenland.
He’s telling everyone what he wants to do, no one is delivering real consequences to stop him, and he is in charge. Listen to what he’s saying.
Refusing to take him ‘seriously’ and actually act against him, is exactly what normalizes his actions when he later does the thing that seemed crazy a month or a year ago.
Look at what he was saying that seemed crazy and hyperbolic a year or two ago. Look at what he is doing now, and no one is stopping him.
Yes, I agree that the personality defect is a form of narcissism.
I think, though, that the narcissism mechanism acts a bit differently than you say.
I think he sees himself as a great man, a man who can see further than others, a man who gets things done and above all a man who makes deals. I’m not saying his is any those things, he’s not, just that this is how he narcissistically sees himself.
Interestingly, I think this disordered thinking is probably what makes him not give any shits about what other people think. Like, from his perspective he’s going to do a thing that will be unpopular because people are myopic, but eventually his results will be too obvious to ignore. Picture a narcissistic software engineer, they do the same thing. He does this very clumsily, because he is not actually a great man in the way he sees himself, and he has never made any attempt to work on his personality shortcomings, because narcissism.
To be absolutely clear, this is what I think is occurring in his mind, I am not personally saying that he is a great man etc. His self perception as that is just what drives how he acts.
Anyway, he does want Greenland. Taking Greenland would make him a major historical figure, from the perspective of a man (himself) who developed his sense of historical significance from literal school history books, not from any deep thinking. Physics phds want to be the guy in the physics textbook. He wants to be the guy in the history textbook. Annexing Greenland would give him that.
However, he will not use physical force to achieve that. I would put big money on that prediction. It doesn’t fit with his m/o. He is bluffing about using physical force, in order to strong arm Denmark into a purchase deal. Because, you know, he sees himself as a master deal maker. Doing a deal on Greenland would be a massive win for that aspect of his persona, in terms of that self belief being supported in the narcissistic sense.
Using physical force on Greenland would be literally insane, and if you listen to the man talk for a long enough time, as I have, he has shown signs of being many, many things, but being literally insane is not one of them. Nothing he has done so far has surprised me (with the exception of the Gulf of America, he did catch me off guard with that one).
His supporters don’t really care about Greenland. I think from their perspective, Trump does some pretty goofy stuff, but if he’s the guy who will do something about 1) the Mexicans and 2) the trade policies that created the rust belt, then he’s their guy.
The problem comes when he thinks about making a deal that can't be made. Denmark can't sell Greenland. It's just not possible within their framework of relationship with the citizens of Greenland. So what will he do when it doesn't pan out? I don't know. We're seeing the same thing with Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not yet in a position where peace is possible. He wants to be seen making the peace. It can't happen, so he's going to punish Ukraine because they lost the blame game.
No, they won't go to war over it. But it'll be the end of the post war consensus, probably the end of NATO. It's a cliff, once you go over it there's no coming back.
Yeah I know. Not arguing, just pointing out it's not a small move. He's said a lot of stuff, but hasn't yet put the US in a position with it's allies that can't be rowed back.
> and if you listen to the man talk for a long enough time, as I have, he has shown signs of being many, many things, but being literally insane is not one of them
I guess the disconnect comes from the fact that for many people including myself, the perception has always been of the exact opposite.
It depends entirely on the definition of insanity, eh?
I don’t think he is clinically insane, or incompetent in a court of law insane. Deep down he knows what the truth is, or he couldn’t do what he is doing. You can’t go in the opposite direction of something if part of you doesn’t know where it actually is.
NPD is a disorder, which isn’t the psychological definition of insanity either.
He just refuses to believe or acknowledge anything that doesn’t reinforce his world view, regularly preferring (and enforcing on others) his delusional world view instead, which has him as a strong man, excellent deal maker, etc.
He also goes out of his way to destroy anyone who disagrees with his delusional world view, to the point of committing what appears to be clear criminal acts to do so, and prefers coercive control over any sort of mutually beneficial bargaining.
It all fits.
Look at the consistent outcome for people who are around or under the control of malignant narcissists, and you’ll see why this is a big problem. He is going to end up destroying everything valuable or real in everything he has control over in his attempt to make it fit his world view, and destroy anyone he can who attempts to stop it.
If economic means don’t work, he has assassinated folks before, and while yes it doesn’t fit his MO to start wars directly - at some point it’s going to happen.
All it takes is for someone to stand up to him in the right circumstances.
If he can take Greenland, and sees no real consequences (he certainly didn’t get any for taking out the Iranian general, despite hundreds of service member injuries), even if it involves force - seriously, why wouldn’t he in your world view?
And do you think the cowards currently in power elsewhere are going to risk starting WW3 for a bunch of ice? Greenland only has 56k people in the whole country, and most of them are rural farmers who will never have to care what gov’t is actually running the country.
Saying crazy things like implementing general tariffs?
Or wanting to create "camps" to hold immigrants, and then sending them to Guantanamo?
Things like threatening retaliations against perceived enemies?
Withdrawing support from Ukraine and groveling to Putin?
I'm pretty tired of people dismissing his crazy outbursts as something he just says because he's not just all talk, he (too) often does the crazy things.
I like that you did a full 180 between your two comments in this thread.
First it was "Trump seems to habitually make hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements" to pretend it's all talk and not representative of actual policy.
And then a complete switch to supporting all of the policies which started as "hyperbolic and ridiculous sounding statements" on tariffs, immigration and Russian imperialism.
Also, it seems your worldview is straight out of a fairy tale from Fox News and/or Russian propaganda. Maybe reading some more diverse and less biased news sources would help you (AP News, BBC, Bloomberg, WSJ, Al Jazeera, Reuters, etc)
It’s not a full 180, you are just viewing a flattened lower dimensional version of what I am saying (I can speculate on the reasons).
Hyperbolic and ridiculous statements include: annexing Greenland by force, annexing Canada at all, permanent significantly higher tariffs on Canada and Mexico
Actual goals: maybe annexing Greenland through pressure tactics, making Canada stop expecting special treatment (the whole annexation thing is just “if you want special treatment, you’re welcome to become a state, otherwise gtfo”), temporary tariffs as a pressure tactic on allies, permanent protectionist tariffs against China and places that launder Chinese goods, America stops interfering in extended family disputes internationally.
For the record I think Trump as a person is a clown and I wish we had serious people as politicians, but it is annoying to see everyone being hysterical all the time over the guy.
I am calling your worldview fairy tale because it moralizes political and international matters. Russia is not evil. America is not good. America is not evil. Russia is not good. These are massive oversimplifications, and it is worryingly reminiscent of war propaganda from old newspapers.
What? Why? There's poems and stories shorter than that that must be copyrightable.
reply