• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle









  • Yup. AI should be used to automate all of the mundane day-to-day BS, leaving us free to practice art, or poetry, or literature, or study, or just do leisure activities. Because all of the mundane BS is automated, so we don’t need to worry about things like income or where our next meal comes from. But instead, we went down the dystopian capitalist timeline, where we’re automating all of the art so artists are forced to get mundane day-to-day BS jobs.


  • If you’re using Windows, the built in AV (Windows Defender) is actually pretty great. Maybe run Malware Bytes every now and then, (as in, install Malware Bytes, run it, then immediately uninstall it again). Between those two (and healthy browsing habits, like using an adblocker, not downloading random .exes, etc) will keep you protected. No AV in the world will be able to fully defend against bad browsing habits, so it all really comes down to that.

    But this is Lemmy, so you’re bound to get buried in “just switch to Linux cuz Windows is a virus” stuff. And while that may be true, it’s clearly not the answer to your question.


  • Because their entire argument thus far has basically been “but we’re a library.” But that completely misses the point that even libraries need to comply with licensing laws. Even with ebooks, they can’t just lend an unlimited number of copies. They have licensing agreements with the publishers, to be able to lend [x] copies of [y] book at a time.

    They purchase digital licenses to be able to lend those books, and they can only lend as many licenses as they own. Just like physical books. They need to use time-gated DRM to automatically revoke access whenever the rental time is up.

    And at first, that’s exactly what IA did. But they decided to disable that DRM, and just start lending unlimited copies to people instead, which flies in the face of established copyright law.


  • +1 for Anna’s Archive. It’s an amazing resource for students too, since they keep research papers and textbooks.

    And before someone gets up in arms about the research papers, the researchers don’t get paid by the journals for publishing with them. In fact, the researchers need to pay the journal to publish, and then the journal turns around and charges people to read it.

    If you ever need to get research for free, you can usually email the researchers directly and they’ll be happy to share it for free; They hate the journals too, (because like I said earlier, they have to pay the journal thousands of dollars,) but feel obligated to use them to publish.

    Even worse, that research and journal publishing was often funded by public funds and research grants. So the journal is paywalling research that taxpayers already paid for, and should be free to access.



  • Yeah, keto got popular because many people lost a lot of weight doing it. And so they naturally attributed the weight loss to the lack of carbs. But in reality, the diet only works because it actually forces you to watch what you’re eating. When you have to think “does this have carbs or sugar” for every single snack, you suddenly snack a lot less. Because the overwhelming answer of “of course it fucking does, it’s a mass produced snack.” When your only options are “make something yourself instead of eating pre-packaged junk” or “don’t snack” a lot of people will opt to skip the snack.

    Basically, keto works because by eliminating carbs you’re also eliminating snacking, and are actually forced to track what you eat. At the end of the day it’s just calories in<calories out.


  • I mean, she’s a public defender. He’s lucky she’s making any arguments at all. Most public defenders are so busy that they only have time to do the bare minimum “make sure all the paperwork is properly filed” effort. They don’t really have time to make long drawn out legal battles in court, because they have nine other cases to argue later that day. They also can’t lie in court because that’s an ethics violation. So she can’t just use the Shaggy “it wasn’t me” defense to try and convince a jury he didn’t do it.

    If I had to take a guess, this argument is actually coming from him, and she’s basically making the argument to the best of her ability. I doubt a plea deal was offered, because they caught him red handed and it’s an extremely high profile case; The prosecutor is likely going to try and make an example out of him. So she likely didn’t have the opportunity to push him to take a plea deal. And she can’t mount a major legal battle. So this is her “fuck it, I guess we’ll ensure his legal rights are upheld” effort.