Plain-English explainer on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA): what it measures, how it can detect treatment response or relapse earlier than imaging, and summaries of recent studies (PRAEGNANT, MONALEESA-3, post-surgery MRD).
I wouldn't hold out for the tech titans to stop exploiting us for our attention. I think we each need to be aware of how we're being influenced and protect ourselves.
Realizing this is difficult for many, I am building a tool to help people combat the influence of social media and online advertising. We'll soon be beta testing. If anyone is interested, there is more information here: https://becomepeerless.com/
I don't use it, but if you want to get serious about getting away from Google and you're into blockchain and decentralization, there is: https://arcaneoffice.com/
Are the office/workspace features what you wanted to replace?
Interesting take from the Andy Warhol Foundation. Warhol could have drawn that from memory. He used an impression he had of existing source material (the photo) and changed it. He didn't copy it and then add on to it. It's an original work of art that didn't exist before.
Copying code. That's seems more duplication for strictly the original intended purpose.
How I see it: Copying an API is copying technical aspects for interoperability reasons. Copyright covers creative aspects, not technical aspects. If the API is covered by patents then the reproduction of technical aspects will be tortuous.
The important thing with copyright is whether you copied, not how you copied. So copying a work by looking at it and then duplicating it is still creating a derivative -- or could be of you reproduce a substantial part of the creative work.
Now, AWF's position seems tenable to me as there are apects of the photo that are not the _creative_ input of the photographer; namely the likeness of the subject. Duplication of those aspects is akin to duplication of the API: is duplication of apects that are not the creative work of the creator of the first work (in one case because those aspects are technical, in the other case because those aspects are just the features of a person's face [the photographer didn't creatively produce those features, unless they're a plastic surgeon!]).
Now, Warhol did copy. Unlike Google he didn't need to copy that particular work for interoperability reasons. To me the fact that any photo would have embodied the subject's features equally well means Warhol had no need to copy this one. That makes AWF's case distinct from Google v.
Warhol didn't even physically do the screen printing himself. He had assistants do it. The screen prints are made directly from the photo. It's a special type of photo sensitive paper. You do it in the darkroom.
