You can redesign the signalling systems etc to work at even 40C, plenty of countries do it. You can't redesign humans to feel comfortable inside a stuffy carriage at 35C.
Sure, but that means the stations will also have 40C air. Can the humans handle that? And it's going to be 42C the next year, 44C the year after, and so on...
What do you do if some incident halts full trains (possibly depowering them but for things like emergency lighting) near the midpoints of longer sections of 40 degC deep tunnels?
You can survive a few hours at that temperature, so not an immediate catastrophe. You should be still able (though not comfortable) to walk to the next emergency exit or station.
There's no reason FreeSteam can't also do that, though. There's no copyright, so just have an extension of the steamapp that changes it to point to your server when downloading games / checking ownership. Piracy stops being a service issue when pirates are allowed to make nice services.
The AP1000 was a new design when Vogtle 3 and 4 were planned. It was certified by the NRC in 2005. NuScale had its small modular reactor design certified by the NRC just a couple of years ago:
If you mean that the NRC holds back designs that are more exotic than plain old light water reactors, maybe so, but that isn't relevant to the "looming power crisis" mentioned by bpodgursky up-thread. Light water reactors are the most affordable and fastest to build everywhere in the world. Pressurized heavy water reactors (like CANDU) are also mature designs. Everything else is slower and more expensive to build, with very limited operational history compared to the dominant water based reactor designs.
To be clear, I think copyright should not exist, as I don't think it follows from the basic principles on which our governance is founded. Regardless of my view on the matter, the state will still enforce copyright. Under the written law, this allows people to treat my work as if copyright did not exist (to a reasonable approximation).
Maybe a different, even more permissible license (public domain like) would be more fitting, but I am a practical person and understand that a more common and well understood license is better for this purpose.
If you think copyright shouldn't exist, you're free to ignore any rights afforded you for your work, "the state" is not going to enforce anything unless you bring a case to a court.
I understand the MIT licence as convention, and it makes sense. It's just you're opining on a public forum about copyright being somehow antithetical to "basic principles on which our governance is founded" whilst attaching copyright notices to your work.
Much of common law is specifically about property, upon which a good portion of modern day governance is founded. So your objection to copyright seems somewhat misinformed.
What is it about copyright that you think is a negative in today's society?
> If you think copyright shouldn't exist, you're free to ignore any rights afforded you for your work, "the state" is not going to enforce anything unless you bring a case to a court.
That doesn't give other people who would like to use my work any useful guarantee, though. Without a license, they would be taking a lot of risk, even if they knew my views on copyright.
> Much of common law is specifically about property, upon which a good portion of modern day governance is founded. So your objection to copyright seems somewhat misinformed.
Physical property has exclusive use. Multiple people cannot use 100% of something at the same time. "Intellectual property" has no such trait. Multiple identical copies of the same work can be used by multiple people at the same time.
Ownership defines who has exclusive use of a thing. Copyright actually defies common law by requiring state power to enforce monopolies on certain information, even on property owned by parties with no association to the originator of a work.
> What is it about copyright that you think is a negative in today's society?
Copyright is sold as "promoting the arts" but in net slows innovation and decreases artistic freedom. Especially in its current form with extremely long lifetimes, it primarily enables rent-seeking by publishers at the expense of the public. There are other ways for artists to make money, and many artists already make most of their money by performing live shows, working on commission, selling early access subscriptions, etc.
I'm continuing because this is interesting, not try to prove some point that undermines your perspective.
> Copyright actually defies common law by requiring state power to enforce monopolies on certain information
All laws ultimately require state power. You're deferring to state power by using the MIT licence, which recognises and legitimises copyright law that you take issue with.
> Copyright is sold as "promoting the arts" but in net slows innovation and decreases artistic freedom.
This is a big claim that requires big evidence. Robust copyright law has existed for about half a century, during which time innovation and artistic freedom seem to have flourished. In fact copyright appears to have directly contributed to the creation of the corpus Meta AI is exploiting; it exists because of copyright, not in spite of it.
> [Copyright] primarily enables rent-seeking by publishers at the expense of the public
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Copyright bestows the right of individuals to benefit from the value they create. Without talking about IP law more broadly in a capitalist system (which seems to be your gripe), I think this is a good thing.
I've benefitted greatly from the content of books, as have we all. If authors had to rely on live shows (for a book?), take commissions and sell subscriptions I think we'd all be worse off, because these provide little to no economic security for authors.
The difference is in the real consequences of the action. Which exist regardless of the abstract notions that precede it and which exist regardless of whether anyone accepts those notions.
Yes, unequal enforcement of the law is inherently unjust and ripe for abuse. That doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed, but a legal system that arbitrarily picks and chooses when it enforces the law is corrupt and has a built in method to persecute and target select people and groups. It undermines the very principle of Rule of Law and allows unjust laws to remain on the books ready to be selectively enforced.
I think you can have two people who, both acting in good faith, can completely lose it over textual communication. Even a phone call can make the same discussion ten times easier.
How about not simply summarising, but creating a broadly similar novel, with similar characters which undergo broadly similar story arcs?
I can see how it could end up as infringement, but also how one could avoid infringement. The issue would seem to be if the original author wishes to sue.
As an example, compare Brooks "The Sword of Shannara" with Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings". It is widely accepted that the former is heavily derivative for the latter; in my view essentially being an example of the above broadly similar novel.
Yet AFAIK, Tolkein's estate didn't sue Brooks. However if they had, how likely would a victory have been?
Now in the case of "Generative LLM", we may have an even closer "derivative work". However the LLM users could well get away with it if they consume a wide enough canon, and the source authors either do not learn of the derivation, or do not have the means to sue.
One of the key lessons learned in the past half-century is that lawsuits like that are:
(a) Often won
(b) Pyrrhic victories
Right now, it's the policy of Paramount not to sue over very clear violations of Star Trek copyrights (see: Star Trek Continues), Rowling to not do the same for Harry Potter (see: Methods of Rationality), etc.
A lawsuit like that results in a modest payout and take-down, together with a loss of brand worth many times that.
On the other hand, the derivative works tend to drive brand value, recognition, and sales.
That's why many works have clear guidelines supporting and encouraging derivative works, with specific boundaries to make sure they don't undermine those works.
I don't know The Sword of Shannara, but each time someone says "inspired by Tolkein" or "building on themes from," Tolkein increases in brand value as a classic and then THE classic. There is a legal line as to where inspiration becomes copying, but if we were to assume, arguendo, that it's clearly over that line, it still probably wouldn't make sense to sue. At best, that would have a chilling impact on more works in the "inspired by" category.
