Manjushri

Anyone who hires a consulting company powered by AI doesn’t need to. Clearly they are capable of making their own poor decisions and don’t need to go to an outside company to get bad advice.

Huh… I didn’t realize that. I’m actually not sure how you would get it to take a new capture.

Not sure. I’ve only known about the site for half a year or so.

They want to be able to sue ISPs who fail to take block people they believe are pirates. Cox did not do that. They told Cox that these people are pirates and Cox didn’t block them. Do you really want your ISP to be able to cut you off just because some other company claims you are using the service to pirate content? I want them to have to go to court and prove a crime was committed before their ISP is required to block them.

Right now, these very publishers can file copyright claims against people on youtube and other sites for infringement. Those claims are not evaluated by youtube. The content is just removed. No proof. No court order. If SCOTUS sides with the guild here, then those same companies will be able to have your internet cut off just by telling your ISP that your IP address was used to pirate their material.

Frankly, I would like a court to be involved before what is now a vital utility is cut off rather than letting book, movie, and music publishers decide who should be cut off with no review.

Uhm… what do you think this is?

This is the Author’s Guild asking for internet providers to be able to block people without a court order. They want to be able to contact a provider and say, “This user downloaded a book without paying for it so you have to cut off their internet.” The provider should not be allowed to do that unless the courts order them to do so.

The linked article clearly shows this.

As our brief explains, when millions of people can copy and share creative works “quickly, anonymously, and across borders,” going after individual infringers one by one is nearly impossible. The only practical way to stop large-scale piracy is to hold accountable for the internet companies that provide the infrastructure—especially when those companies know exactly what’s happening and choose to profit from it anyway.

They can already go after individual infringers and web sites that aid in piracy. Now they want to be able to order providers to cut off users without the bother of going to court over it.

Uhm… they do. Fuck up badly enough and your license is taken away.

Yeah, by the courts. Fuck up badly enough, and you can be taken to court and a judge will take away your license. It’s not taken away by the local government. What the Author’s Guild wants is equivalent to requiring communities to take away the rights of some drivers to use the roads without bothering to take drivers to court.

The local government is not banning repeat speeders from using the roads though. The courts might do that by revoking driver’s licenses, but the engineers and local governments do not have the authority, and should not have the authority to do so.

In the same way, internet providers should not be the one’s who decide that a given user should not have access. That should remain the decision of the courts. If a copyright holder can show the courts that a user should be denied access to the internet, the courts can order the individual cut off. That’s where the power should remain.

Yeah, I for one have never eaten anything except chemicals!

They are captures of the same page at different times .

https://archive.is/5QFkF is the snapshot taken 7 Nov 2025 01:40 and

https://archive.is/TFqAx is the one taken 6 Nov 2024 17:08

I imagine that the Elon’s of the world see these movies only from the perspective of the rich oligarchs who are running those dystopian societies and think, “That is so cool! I want that world!”

Come on. Convincing people they need something and then selling it to them is what capitalism is all about. It doesn’t matter how stupid the idea is, if you convince people to pay for it then by their standard, it’s a good idea.

Not the user you were responding to, and you’re correct about these thermostats, but not all devices retain functionality without internet connectivity. For example, these $2000 dollar ‘smart’ beds.

Some reported on Reddit that they were woken up by their bed suddenly readjusting their preferred sleeping temperatures – some soaring as high as 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Others say their bed became stuck at an extreme incline. According to The Washington Post, some beds also blinked flashing lights and sounded wake-up alarms.

These things became contorted, overheating (or freezing) bricks when AWS went down last week and the owners had no control over them without the app.

Particularly if those innocents are the “right” color.

Are you kidding? They’re proud of it. They honestly think it’s a good thing. Along with the recent article about ICE stopping brown people and using a phone app to ID them from a photograph , we’ve rocketed right past the Papers-Please phase of fascism into a high tech dystopian end game.

It never occurs to anyone that in almost every other country in the world, such a place wouldn’t be necessary.

Yep. It reminds me of this .

Every heartwarming human interest story in America is like “he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine” and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you’d need to pay to prevent it from being used.

Using AI to impersonate another human, real or, fictional should become a crime. It is becoming rapidly apparent that people are far more easily manipulated than we would like to think. We’re staring down the barrel of a world where anyone with $7500 bucks can orchestrate global conversation on any topic they want be it religious, economic, or political.

The complaint, based on internal Meta documents the states’ attorneys obtained through subpoenas, alleges that Meta periodically presents young users with “psychologically and emotionally gripping content,” including violent content, to increase engagement.

Intentionally showing graphic violent content to young users in order to drive engagement is a vile practice. That Meta has a history of manipulating people’s emotional state for profit is bad enough. Doing it to children should be a crime.

Hah, beat me by 17 seconds!

Yet? What kind of idiot would imagine that X would or could provide actual secure communication?

No. According to an article the IDs were from people who were challenging an age determination. Still bullshit, but you don’t need ID to use Discord as a general rule.

The unauthorized party also accessed a “small number” of images of government IDs from “users who had appealed an age determination.”

Small is, of course, a relative term. I would consider a small number to be 2 or 3. They may feel that 10,000 users is a small number. Who can say?