> Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?
This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.
I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
> I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Then pointing out the source is not to your standard is moot. This is a conversation, where opinions and conversations can be had out side in the views or credibility of the source which posted it.
If we were merely to consider the source then hacker news might as well be dig , but with a few “trusted” sources like what cnn?
> of logging into the fire department’s payroll system and altering her Social Security/Medicare FICA deductions in order to increase her biweekly take-home pay by a few hundred dollars.
Meanwhile I can do just that and have been able to do that at every company ever. I don’t understand why this is an issue.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing.
Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental concerns over profit he would be removed.
"Best interests" is deliberately vague. Is it in their "best interests" that you fire the CEO and call the cops because he raped an intern? Or maybe that you agree to accelerate his $40M "bonus" if he agrees to resign without saying why? Or maybe it's in their "best interests" that you pay PIs to develop evidence that the intern has a drug habit and "leak" this "shocking revelation" to the media if they go public?
You can argue almost anything meets this criterion, in some egregious scenarios a court won't buy it, but they will give you enormous leeway.
People write this sentence seeming to imply it means "CEOs and management have a responsibility to be as ruthless and sociopathic as possible to deliver the highest returns, and any consideration of the people or communities they trample beyond legal requirements is itself borderline illegal."
There is a lot - A LOT - of room for ambiguity and debate on the specifics of shareholder value and "best interests." The "legal constraints to act in the best interest" is not some set of corporate rules and KPIs codified into our legal code write large. It's not about maximizing a specific KPI over a fixed timeframe.
Not to mention Sweeney is the majority shareholder in Epic's case.
It’s a private company… to whatever theoretical extent he’s beholden to the majority of the shareholders with potential board of directors and shareholder meeting shenanigans … that majority of shareholders is himself… and I’m pretty sure he’s ok with his own decisions…
"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders."
This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.
And, insofar as such an obligation to “maximise shareholder value” might exist, that obligation doesn’t necessarily translate into “maximise profit”.
The shareholders of a theatre company might care more about breaking even while getting an interesting assortment of plays produced with a great cast than they do about making a bunch of money out of the venture, so an executive who makes a bunch of money by running productions of uninspired cash grab shows won’t actually be maximising value. Likewise, I’m sure that Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds care more about Wrexham AFC’s managers getting good athletic results than they do about making a bunch of money.
>And, insofar as such an obligation to “maximise shareholder value” might exist, that obligation doesn’t necessarily translate into “maximise profit”.
And even where it does translate into "maximise profit" because it's what shareholders of a particular company may want, there is no timeframe for it, and there is no way to tell whether any particular decision by the CEO runs contrary to the goal of eventually maximising profits.
Companies can spend all their revenues plus a constant stream of new capital on growing market share or revenue, on charitable activities or the happiness of employees, on huge research and development projects or on restructuring after restructuring and still credibly claim that all of it is ultimately meant to maximise profits.
The point where CEOs and CFOs have to be careful is when the company faces solvency issues. That's where legal limits of freewheeling decision making kick in, because it's where it's no longer about shareholders but about creditors.
There's still argument about this. The oft mentioned Dodge v. Ford Motor Company 1919 covers much the argument for and against. But it's clearly not straightforward.
My (IANAL) reading of it is that maximising shareholder value is probably the law, but it's practically unenforcible. Being practically unenforcible doesn't stop CEOs and boards from using it as a guiding principle.
Dodge v. Ford Motor Company was a Michigan State decision, so even if one thinks it means maximizing shareholder value is the law (it really didn't say that, broadly), it only applies in Michigan.
> "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true
It's more like too hard to be proven in any way. Unless you live in an simulator it's really hard to say which set of decisions is better than another. People often say it is obvious or in hindsight but fact is there are no such hard proofs.
Even then, if the shareholders approve of trashing the company with ice cream parties (had to get rid of the illegality of cocaine for this point) there's nothing inherently wrong or illegal with that.
As long as the executives are behaving generally how the shareholders want, it's not a problem.
Cook isn't bound by that true enough, because he remains the majority stakeholder, but that is increasingly not the case as it becomes more and more regular that companies bring in new CEOs from entirely different companies if not entirely different industries, who do not own that much stake. In those cases, the board and shareholders can and do exert a lot of influence, up to and including firing them if they do not do their jobs correctly, which to shareholders is invariably some form of "make line go up."
And that's just civil influence, there are legal mechanisms indeed in place if a CEO "trashes a company" and what that means is different depending on the company.
Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist.
When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street.
Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board.
We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head.
Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage.
In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.
Why would we need to create a different term or to even categorize these two kinds of people differently?
They both deserve and need help. If someone spits on a windshield doesn't mean they deserve less
Given this it would seem running any simple algo such as balance colors or adjust lighting would disqualify the output for copyright. Only change here was the algo used.
No, that isn’t true. If you do substantial original work and employ AI that is different than if the entire work is the output of AI. Nobody is saying using AI for any one part taints what is otherwise a substantially original work.
The substantial original work here is the prompt authorship. That’s the “paintbrush” in this work. And the “paint” is the AI.
It’s very easy to spend hours iterating on prompts for the perfect photo while using human judgment to figure out how to steer the image. That’s meaningful human involvement and should be able to be protected.
Does that mean an art gallery curators spending hours, days even over a thousand pictures that people took randomly finally finding the perfect one for a project he has should have the copyright to that picture? Considering it's not a professional, just a tourist that took it.
Sure. But where should that exist on the spectrum of copyrightability vs painting with a physical brush? I don’t think we can just handwave AI generated art away but isnt your contribution a lot less than painting?
How is this different than attaching 10 paint cans of different color from strings and poking hold in them and letting them swing?
Could the creator of the ai producing code then hold copyright, or maybe it’s those who found the weights?
This ruling seems to suggest any method of automating works would not qualify for copyright.
If so. We are just one step closer to abandoning the notion of a copyright, which still is the only logical solution in a world where we can have and do anything we desire at the click of a button.
> How is this different than attaching 10 paint cans of different color from strings and poking hold in them and letting them swing?
The "creator" of the art in that case is also the creator of the system which generates the art. You didn't create Stable Diffusion, MidJourney or whatever else, it's just a tool you have access to.
I'm not sure if that's a difference that should matter, but it's clearly a notable difference.
If a developer writes their own Stable Diffusion variant from scratch, uses nothing more supportive than Numpy and writes all the supporting code themself, scrapes the web for data themself, trains image generating models on their own hardware, and then uses their own self created tool/system to generate AI, should that be copyrightable? In this case, everything short of Numpy would be the hand written code logic of that one developer (or small team). The data used to train the system could be argued is no different than a person viewing the world they live within... copyrightable?
Stepping into the thread, but as someone who agrees with the copyright office, in the case you laid out, I think there would be a better argument there actually for copyright, yes. Personally, I disagree with the last part (a tired argument about AI imho) but it feels like it would have a better argument.
I disagree with the copyright office. I think my creative output as an engineer is not necessarily less creative or original than an artist. We are making an arbitrary distinction here. Artists make devices, machines sometimes. Is the output of those machines not copyrightable? I bet it is.
So. The string lengths, colors, and hole position in the paint cans along with initial velocity and angle are what can qualify for copyright?
Are paint brushes just tools people have access to, does the manufacturer of the paint brush own the painting?
Prompts are no different than positions and angles the artist instructs the tool to motion. The only real difference is the ratio of perceived work to output.
Even a prompt could take years to derive. I am 40. And 30 years ago I could have not com up with the following, making the prompt below 40 years in the making.
“Field of dead dreams, with copyright monsters flying above looking for there next meal”.
Spell check fixed a few things, along with typo correction, does Apple know own a copyright of my work?
I doubt it, that would be like someone setting up the hypothetical "swinging paint cans" for public use then trying to claim copyright on the product. I think the slam dunk case would be you create your own system, train it on data you own, and then you own the output.
Again, this doesn't strike me as a useful standard for copyright, but I think it's the state of the law today. Obviously with new technology there's a need to revisit the law, and honestly even without the new tech copyright law was already a steaming mess.
I bet I can create a machine that uses those 10 cans of paint to do computations. That's all a computer is, really. Those 10 cans of paint swung by an artist are a creative endeavor, but my output as a software engineer with the 10 cans of paint is not? Seems arbitrary and unfair and probably shouldn't stand careful legal scrutiny.
lol. No. Deployments were not the issue. At any given time an automated deployment system could have had a mistake introduced that resulted in bad code being sent to the system. It does not matter if it was old or new code. Any code could have had this bug.
What the issue was, and it’s one that I see often. Firstly no vision into the system. Not even a dash board showing the softwares running version. How often i see people ship software without a banner posting its version and or an endpoint that simply reports the version.
Secondly no god damn kill switch. You are working with money!! Shutting down has to be an option.
Oh god. I just realized this is a PM. A plight on software engineering. People who play technical, and “take the requirements from the customer to the engineer”. What’s worse is when they play engineer too.
I mean it makes no sense, without even reading the article, just by working in IT I can tell you that if you're one deployment away from being bankrupt then you're either doing it wrong, or in the wrong business.
Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.
The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.
The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.