1:1 classroom instruction removes a number of teachers from the labor pool equal to the number of students. Apprenticeships remove only a small fraction of that from the labor pool (because the practitioner spends only part of their time teaching/supervising the apprentice and then makes the apprentice go practice the skill) and partially makes up the lost labor with the labor from the apprentices- apprentices are expected to do actual productive work, not just learn.
> 1:1 classroom instruction removes a number of teachers from the labor pool equal to the number of students.
It does require more teachers, but not 1:1. Students being taught 1:1 learn a lot faster, and can be set work to do unsupervised. From my experience I think less than an hour a seek (sometimes a lot less) of tuition time (plus a bit more for marking, and another few hours of study by the student) is sufficient to cover a subject 1:1 (and it can often me a lot less) for teenagers (specifically for GCSEs - British exams sat in schools at 16).
it does require a significantly higher ratio than classroom teaching usually does, but its a long way from needing 1:1.
In music you usually have a small amount of one-on-one instruction and then you practice. In tennis you usually have a small number of one-one-lessons and then you practice and play matches.
You could probably do the same for maths. You're given some problems to try to solve and given two hours, then once you've made a serious attempt you get individual tutoring for an hour, then you go back to solving problems and there's a short one-on-one question session at the end, let's say 30 minutes. Then you have a 5 hour study session with 1.5 hours of teacher time, so he can have around three students.
No, they're saying that they have one venv they use for everything (i.e., it's basically a working "pip install --user").
I think it's a good thing that pip finally decided to refuse overwriting distro package paths (the alternative is far worse) but making "pip install --user" not work as well doesn't make sense.
Having a dictionary is a prerequisite but is only a small part of the spell check problem. Plus, plain text word lists are slow to parse in the 80s; better going with a Trie or some other exotic tree structure that is naturally compressed but O(log(n)) instead of O(n) to traverse.
The computer has to figure out whether the word is in the dictionary, but it also has to figure out a suggestion for what to change it to.
And even after just that, we already have a bug- homonym mistakes- homonyms are in the dictionary but they’re misspelled (that was intentional btw).
How misspelled is another problem. We’ve had Levenshtein et al algorithms for a long time, but how different can you get? A really badly misspelled word might not have any good replacement candidates within your edit distance limit.
There are also optimizations like frequently mistyped words (acn-> can), acronyms, etc.
I am not sure what “the collapse of an empire” means. True empires bleed off colonies or satellites, often over hundreds of years; sometimes with wars, sometimes without.
Today being imprecise with language to smear one’s political opponents is in fashion; a lot of talk about “empire” and “regime” etc. is just propaganda.
The fall of a government will leave a power vacuum and people will rush to fill it; violence might be part of the fall but will almost certainly be part of the competition to be the replacement. We have dozens of examples in the last hundred years.
During all those times, people have to live their lives; things go on pretty much as normal for most people not involved in the struggle for power. However there are disruptions to utilities and financial systems; many people lose their life savings and sometimes feeding people is hard, let alone doing business like manufacturing.
The only thing that is “apocalyptic” about the fall of a government and its replacement with a new one, is when the new government is full of radical ideologues that use the force of government, and ultimately violence, against their political opponents, such as in the Russian Revolution, the Nazi rise to power, and Mao’s rise to power.
This is not a foregone conclusion; we didn’t see intentional mass starvation or genocide in Iran, for example, although there were thousands of executions as the new regime purged its opponents.
When you’re dead, you don’t have rights anymore because you’re not a person anymore.
Anything of value that survived your death- property, money, IP rights, etc. now are part of an estate which is administered and distributed according to your will and/or state law. Other than your state’s law and your will, it’s not up to you what happens to your stuff after you die.
Artifacts of your existence that you did not own, like your extended family’s home movies or that time TV news caught you in the background or your friends’ photos, don’t belong to you (never did) so I’m not sure you can do anything about that, and it poses an interesting question of whether your likeness could be reconstructed from artifacts that are not part of your estate.
It would probably be worth having a law that says that your likeness is part of your estate, and then it can be covered by estate law.
Of course right now you could probably sign a contract giving rights to use of your likeness, and have terms and conditions that would cover post-death scenarios ; I have heard that some celebrities are already entering into such contracts for money.
As you mention, if copyright law codifies the rights, it then becomes trivial to stick the property rights to self into a trust or other post death entity for the estate to administer and enforce. The nation state policy is the hard part.
Creating a copyright on one's likeness seems pretty messy in regards to that, but there is a somewhat similar idea in German law (and surely other places) that creates similar concerns for using an image or work.
We have a "right to one's image", you generally can't distribute/publish photos with recognizable people without consent. Unless they're truly just "part of the landscape" (background randos), crowds at public events, or of legitimate news/artistic interest.
I'd expect a similar threshold to apply to this Danish solution.
I dont think this is actually true? You can, namely, write a will. You can choose what is done with your possesions, presumably including destroying them. Iirc there's a rule called the law against perpetuities, where you have control over your estate via the will, maximally until some time after the death of a specific named person who was alive at the time of your death. (which I find a strange stipulation)
> where you have control over your estate via the will, maximally until some time after the death of a specific named person who was alive at the time of your death. (which I find a strange stipulation)
This is a compromise of allowing some of your wishes to be fulfilled after your death while preventing long term 'dead hand' control over property and resources. You can set up a foundation dedicated to "thing" but can't control what that foundation does until the end of time.
We probably don't want to live in a world that is controlled by the wishes of someone gone for 500 years who had a view of the world completely at odds with the present. It centralizes power and ties the hands of those living in the present.
I agree its good for it not to be infinite. I just find it strange that the length is based on gambling at the time of your will which person you can name will live longest. Why not a fixed amount of time?
I guess it's so you can provide stipulations to etc care for your newlyborn for their life or something, idk
The argument of likeness seems odd to me because there are at least a dozen people who might look almost exactly like you who are alive somewhere in the world.
What if I give explicit permission to use my likeness but my lookalike demands it can't be used? We're both dead. Do my wishes not get respected because someone who looks like they could be my identical twin had other wishes? Whoever's estate has the deeper pockets?
See photography by François Brunelle. The similarities went past appearances too. Many of the stranger dopplegangers had similar hobbies and even similar personalities. So if an AI recreation looks like me, acts like me, and has the same hobbies as me that means nothing unless someone is trying to claim it is me (rather my likeness).
To lawyers, “likeness”is a term of art and means much more than just how you look, including image, name, voice, and other identifiable features. Basically it’s what actors bring to contracts in addition to their labor.
I don’t claim to understand all the intricacies but it is the relevant term of art when discussing this topic from a legal perspective.
Yes, but none of that is truly unique. The odds of a doppleganger sharing my name are astronomically slim but my looks, voice, interests, personality, etc. are not truly unique to me.
For an example, what of voice impersonators? Sounding like Morgan Freeman is not unique to Morgan Freeman. What if a soundalike legally changes their name to Morgan Freeman? What if a lookalike changes their name?
I'm familiar with the existence of such laws but less so with how they are enforced or how they can even be enforced at all. The laws have never made that much sense to me.
The way it mostly works is that if a company hires a Morgan Freeman impersonator to do the voice over for their car commercial, Morgan Freeman can sue them for using his likeness without permission:
> We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.
If you not impersonating Morgan Freeman, and there is no history or framing to make that connection, he is unlikely to sue you, or win a lawsuit.
Courts are quite aware that similar things can come from divergent sources.
Even copyright law fails to protect commonality between works that would be illegal if actually copied, but were arrived at legitimately and credibly independently.
Not saying someone shouldn't use common sense to avoid problems. Don't do Morgan Freeman impersonations comedically, then voice overs of movies.
The goal I think is to protect people with valuable likenesses being undercut by cheap knockoffs, not to protect everyone's likeness. So it's more like a trademark than anything.
> of an estate which is administered and distributed according to your will and/or state law. Other than your state’s law and your will, it’s not up to you what happens to your stuff after you die.
That's right there at the beginning of the article!
> argues US law should give a dead person's estate a limited right to digital deletion as a defense against the exploitation of digital remains.
I was going to attempt to expess the same sentiment, or go on a tangent about how insane it would be to have a digital copy of me causing a bit of trouble and chaos into eternity,but what has realy struck me is that I am going through my parents house, as they are both in long term care, together, and looking through a mountain of stuff, and finding little that retains any relevance....they are not here in this jumble, cubic yards of paper and photos, and 40 years of computers and hard drives,etc
and I feel quite strongly that whatever can be resurected from any amount of data, will still be irrelevant, horrible and creepy ,it is not going to be a "thing"
How about this then: this violates ancient and near-universal proscriptions against necromancy. The living are not to speak with the mouths of the dead.
I would like to pass on my GDPR rights over my data in my will. It already can be a struggle for others to use rights of others they legally hold, eg by legal documents like a death certificate. The law (EU+UK at least) is adaptable and extendable, but the data holders aren't.
If the NYT was journalistic, your point would be valid. They are now activist, so their motives should factor into the weight you ascribe to their analysis.
reply