It would take someone mentally ill (i.e. "neurodivergent") to actually go beyond the routine and take drastic action to fix. Normal people don't go against what society deems normal. Normal people will lie to themselves rather than face the truth, and that's a good thing usually. Almost always is it better to be united in a less optimal path than divided. This is true for the individual as well as socirty.
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.
There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same.
And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot at the current moment. But a home computer from 20 years ago would beat >90% of the world in chess.
A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight.
Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guarantee a win.
I don't know how you are defining randomness, but the best player doesn't win the game every time, which is about as much proof as you need that there is a degree of randomness.
Define random in terms of sports, the same conditions apply to chess. The wind affecting trajectory of a ball could be similar to environmental factors effecting cognitive performance.
I wouldn't use the term "random" either. What randomness exists for baseball? Slight curve of a bat? Maybe that is part of the game and should be calculated into by the player and isn't randomness at all but part of the game. "Randomness" exists in almost every competitive activity, its called variance.
It's not even worth discussing, you don't even understand the terms you are using.
> There is no random element to the game of chess.
No idea how you are defining random. What random elements exist for cricket? The same things you would define as random for a sport would be the same for chess.
The sad part is I am better at chess than you are. And have a deeper understanding of the game. Unless you are CM rated or above, highly doubt it.
> A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated
Less complicated than any sport that a computer can't be better at than humans.
By definition there are more moving variables in 99% of sports than chess. 5 on 5 basketball, at any time any player can be in an almost endless number of positions on the court in an almost endless number of contortions with different velocity and acceleration of multiple components of the body. The mental intelligence required to teach a robot how to walk and run is significantly harder of a problem than beating the best chess player in the world.
Chess isn't complicated. There is a finite number of moves a player can make at any one turn. And there is a finite number of unique possible games that can be played in chess, which means its solvable (not neccesaeily that it will be solved). You can notate an entire chess game on a napkin, you can't even fully quantify any sport with full length video footage. Comparing the vast complexity of physical movement to pieces on a board. Its a joke, you're a joke.
I graduated highschool 4 years ago. What I remember is about 1/3 of the kids not even paying attention in class and just being on their phones. For honors and ap classes it was a little better, but even then there were always a few kids completely distracted with their cellphones.
If this is the case, question what will happen when the students you describe graduate. Maybe, they will get a reality check. Why didn't that check come in high school? Maybe, they will fail in life. In both cases, the school system has failed them. High school should be a controlled environment that allows youth to safely fail, learn from failure, and grow.
Phone addiction is an immensely complicated problem. This strategy of blanket bans will not rehabilitate students, just as the war on drugs failed prior.
> If this is the case, question what will happen when the students you describe graduate. Maybe, they will get a reality check.
I just went to whole foods the other day and the butcher didn't know how to convert between fractions and decimals. They were American btw, in 20s or 30s
Maybe they'll fail after high school? Who knows? But anyway, at least they'll know how fractions work. At least they'll have basic reading skills and be capable of voting and participating in society
I don't think that's exactly fair. I took a few years between high school and college, it's surprising how much basic math skills I forgot how to do. Now, it was simple to relearn that information, but if you asked me at that time how to convert 12/13 to decimal I probably wouldn't be able to do better than a rough approximation.
This includes a lot of things. We have had less than 100 years to adjust to the technological revolution and rapid globalization. Its seem that we take for granted that we will adapt to a completely different world. Humans have spent the majority of our existence in a wildly different environment and our adaption to a completely new environment won't be quick nor without many lives lost and quality of life affected.
For example:
Unhealthy, addictive food along with modern food preservation is responsible for the most deaths in the US through obesity and heart disease, with obesity having a a high number of comordibities including sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, and (arguably) ADHD (further research needs to be conducted). Food in the past was limited and not available in vast excess to the average human, and certainly not foods that are extremely unhealthy and addictive.
Another example would be a higher average life expectancy. How do you deal with a population of 70-80 years olds who many can't work, require disproprotionate resources for their survival, and age related mental & cognitive decline.
What is the solution? We can wait for humans to adapt, evolotuarily and socially, which will take many thousands of years. Or we can enact political change. The issue is that we these changes need to balance the increasing power and ability of the state with individual freedoms. Along with having a lean political machine that can further change for the future. I don't see a way forward, not that it doesn't exist, but this is an environment more unlike any other one we have ever known and the next 10-100 years of the species is as unpredictable for us as it has ever been spanning back as far as the start of the agricultural revolution.
To some degree I think that with the increase in use of digital media there needs to better rights and methods for sharing like one can with physical media.
However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it. Furthermore, the creator should be able to determine the format of the release of their work. If someone wants to alter their work, they must do so in a transformative manner and not pass it off as the creator's work.
Someone who makes a book with formatting specific to say a PDF, could be unfairly reviewed or judged by readers who borrowed distributed copies that are formatted to epub, for example.
This is a real problem with discussions about copyright, because this is a great example of something that is a mic drop on a message board that will get you tossed out on your ear in a court of law.
Only because of the presentation. I think the same argument could be made in a more professional way.
As a society we have to choose where to draw the line between the rights of the author and the rights of the consumer. Every right that we extend to authors is a burden on society, and we have to figure out the point at which returns for the collective are diminishing
we need to stop looking at accessibility as something we add occasionally to a product when things are going well and we want to feel nice about ourselves.
the best way to do it is through things like this, where the content is available to you and you can choose how to consume it - dark mode, but maybe also reader mode, large fonts, wide screens, text search, etc - these should be considered the basic necessities, and then anything you want to do to make it look nice and feel creative is on top, as an option - even the default option if you really care about marketing over content.
Re-read my comment, I said that anyone can do whatever they want with their own copy. But once they start distributing a modified copy is when their is a problem.
> However, it's not fair use to copy material and redistribute it.
You mean permanent copies, right? Then the IA doesn't disagree. They just want to loan out one digital copy while the original is locked up, in an attempt to emulate not making copies as closely as possible in a digital world.
> Furthermore, the creator should be able to determine the format of the release of their work. If someone wants to alter their work, they must do so in a transformative manner and not pass it off as the creator's work.
> Someone who makes a book with formatting specific to say a PDF, could be unfairly reviewed or judged by readers who borrowed distributed copies that are formatted to epub, for example.
I can get behind forced marking in some circumstances, but shifting between digital and physical should fall under first sale doctrine and the author should not have control over it.
It does not help the situation here that IA went to war with publishers in the US courts with a system that did not in fact enforce that invariant, but rather declared unilaterally that the pandemic justified them taking a single copy of a book and lending it an arbitrary number of times --- something cited in the opinion of the court, IIRC!
It doesn't help. On the other hand the court doesn't seem to think the arbitrary lending makes a difference to copyright, does it? I was under the impression it's only mentioned as a knock against IA.
This came up a bunch on the last thread we had about this. There's a saying among lawyers, "bad facts make bad law". Courts are going to render a verdict, usually, based on legal principles and with broad applicability. But they actual process they're going to use to make that decision is going to be heavily influenced by the facts of the case. So if you're making a run at a well-established feature of law --- say, "copyright law says you can't make copies of other people's stuff and distribute it without their permission" --- you want to go into that case with the absolute best facts you can possibly marshal. IA came to this case with a really bad fact pattern!
I think a lot of different people could have told them they were going to lose, and especially that they were going to lose the appeal after they lost in the lower court. But they have no accountability mechanism. It didn't cost them anything to push the case as far as they could go, despite that doing so meant that the predictable result of their case probably dooms CDL under any fact pattern anywhere in the country.
> There's a saying among lawyers, "bad facts make bad law".
One of the problems here is that there is a flaw in the legal system where if the law is unclear, there is nowhere you can go to request a definitive clarification. If you want to find out if you're allowed to do something, you first have to do it and only then find out if somebody takes you to court over it so the court can rule on whether you were allowed to.
Worse, they did CDL for a long time before COVID and nobody took them to court. To get a definitive answer you not only have to do it, somebody has to sue you. And they're not going to do that if they expect you to win, because that would cost them money to pay for lawyers only to set a precedent they don't like.
So in order to create the possibility of a precedent saying it's allowed, you have to push the envelope enough that your opponents think there's a good enough chance that you'll lose to take the risk of bringing you to court. That's preposterous and unreasonable, but it's how the system works.
> Courts are going to render a verdict, usually, based on legal principles and with broad applicability.
Appellate courts might do that (though even the vast majority of appellate decisions are narrow and, even if technically precedential, lack broad applicability.) Trial courts, whose rulings aren't even binding precendent on the same court, much less any others, do not. Even applellate courts in cases where an issue is raised which seems to offer the possibility of a ruling with broad impact often don't.
> So if you're making a run at a well-established feature of law --- say, "copyright law says you can't make copies of other people's stuff and distribute it without their permission"
I would say that the precise bounds of fair use (which absolutely does allow, under current law, in some cases, making copies of other people's stuff and distributing it without permission) is exactly the opposite of a well-established feature of copyright law; fair use is an area where the statutory rules are fuzzy and the application of them to anything that isn't almost an identical fact pattern to one that there is a prior case providing binding precedent on is...murky, at best.
Didn't they rope in enough libraries so they didn't actually overshoot on almost any book? The way they did that after the fact was cheeky but I don't think it's that bad of a fact pattern. Instead I think it was similarly doomed either way, and the real issue is that a lawsuit was triggered at all.
> "Phonorecords" are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "phonorecords" includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
So the version of the work traveling through the air is not in itself a phonorecord protected by copyright law: fair use is not even relevant for it. (However, copyright law does protect the phonorecord in the CD from being performed publicly.)
Do CD players tend to keep any more than a few seconds' worth in memory? If not, you could easily argue that any given segment is too short to contain copyrightable expression. But fair use is a very particular concept about the ultimate purpose of producing a copy, which I don't think would apply to any scenario along these lines.
Clearly, it would be infringement if you buffered a minute of audio from CD into a player, then sold that player to someone else (without unpowering it) while keeping the CD for yourself. So I guess you might be right, and it could be fair use that allows it in the typical case (assuming it is allowed).
Clearly no, and we have two opinions now from federal courts explaining why. Maybe they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and get a 3rd, taking this question off the table categorically for the next 30 years.
Your comment was in response to an argument about what the law is. This entire thread is about a court case, which deal with what the law is. You're in no position to accuse others of not responding on-topic.
His comment, despite being placed as a reply to mine, did not address what I was arguing.
I'm particular the "clearly no" does not work. The "clear" thing was not what I was contesting.
And I want to state here that I don't want to relitigate anything in the original discussion. I'm only replying because you seem to misunderstand what this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607486 meant in the first place and I'm willing to explain in other wording what it meant.
Do you want to explain that in any way, or do you just want to be rude while you keep saying incorrect things about my comments? In particular, I never accused anyone of being off-topic.
Early in this conversation I made a comment that shifted the topic slightly, but was also a reply to the argument in the parent comment. tptacek's reply to me was not a reply to the argument in my comment. It was arguing past me. Or I could say it was strawmanning me, but that makes it sound too intentional.
I think that situation is pretty simple. It also seems pretty simple that you misunderstood my comment #41607486.
What's your actual criticism, other than the incorrect idea that I accused tptacek of being off-topic, and other than vague petty snipes?
So I'm not missing anything. You had exactly one criticism, and I explained over and over that it's not what I meant. You can't change what I meant no matter what you say; that criticism is flat-out invalid. And you have no replacement criticisms, despite implying you had some.
The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century. So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
> The law we're talking about does not in fact date back to player pianos or s's that look like f's; it's been continuously refined all the way into the 21st century.
It has been partially updated but not enough.
> So I think it matters a great deal what it actually says now.
I never implied otherwise.
A suggestion for change is by definition based on the current version.
Someone who borrows my poorly stored record collection may get the wrong impression about an artist. Or the book they borrow may be missing packages, making the story not make sense.
All of that is irrelevant. I own those copies and am free to share them as a please. That the copy I own is digital versus physical should not change that.
If you are gonna be a barister, wear gloves when handling receipts. Make sure they aren't flimsy plastic or latex gloves either. Otherwise you're gonna be absorbing all that yummy bpa from the thermal paper used for reciepts into your bloodstream.
Productive labour is mostly menial and of little pay.
Unproductive labour has barriers to entry guided by traits the upper class select for, and pays the amount equal to the theft of the labour produced by the productive laborers.
Nothing is more satisfying than seeing an unproductive laborer eat humble pride and start contributing to society through work.
If you are from the United States its interesting to trace back your ancestry and last name to a specific person/persons from another country.
There are tons of websites for different last names in the United States, showing history of the name. Many times the last name be traced back to a singular person, which I find especially cool since you have sprawling families all connected by one guy who made the journey over. Obviously last names like Smith won't be like this, but if you have a unique last name it can actually be quite common that one person coming to the new world connects you and everybody else in the Americas together. I find that super cool to think about and I am glad people are doing the effort to research and find this info out.
In addition, for people who were adopted and didn't know their birth parents, it can be interesting to connect with your biological family through ancestry work.
My mother is adopted and 23andMe and Ancestry have both provided me with a way of connecting with relatives as far apart as Canada and Australia. Before “revealing” my connection to them I’ve stated that in doing so I may reveal information about a shared ancestor that doesn’t put that person in the best light (my mum was the result of a short affair between a married man and a much younger woman at the end of World War 2). All have stated they are ok with this and in most cases had no contact to the ancestor involved anyway.
You are right in the context of the power NP's have compared to regular doctors. The primary difference in an NP and a doctor practically is pay. They do so much similar stuff, even though they shouldn' be allowed to. NP's prescribing meds, like a child with bazooka shooting at mentally ill people.
However, in certain situations a society's path becomes so misdirected that its better to be alone than follow the group.