I think the guy you’re replying to is probably right, just because you can tell from the article the author is not really an expert or advanced user.
But I upvoted you because honestly we do not get enough random Shakespeare on online comments lol
I’ve read a couple of the majority opinions and dissenter opinions
The president already had presumptive immunity for official acts. This basically just reinforces the precedent and sets up a framework for determining official vs unofficial.
Nothing about this ruling fundamentally changes Trump’s position except that he has the option of claiming he was “acting officially” for example during Jan 6th. Then it will go up to USSC and they will determine the specifics case by case
Why does it not matter as much as it seems? Because a president already had presumptive immunity for official acts before.
Yes, it’s important. But it’s not the end to democracy. It essentially creates a check against the executive branch by the judicial branch. And honestly, I’m OK with that considering how powerful the executive branch is.
Biden’s campaigners don’t care about any of that. It’s their job to get people to vote. They don’t care about the truth. I get it, I would do the same thing in their position.
Everybody talking about replacing you because of your terrible debate performance? Blast the “End to democracy” tagine as loud as you can so that news cycle changes.
It worked like a charm, I think it was a good strategic move
You’re not making sense
It’s PR 101. I’m not making a controversial statement. Biden would be stupid not to. He has competent campaign officials.
You’re not understanding me. I’m not claiming he orchestrated this decision. I’m saying his campaign is using this decision as an opportunity to deflect attention away from the concerns around his age that erupted after the debate.
Never let a good crisis go to waste and all that. Am I speaking Greek?
Democracy is about choice. If we don’t have choice democracy is already dead. We are not fighting for democracy- it’s already gone. We are fighting about how the future authoritarian government will develop.
We have moved past neoliberal. We have transitioned into protectionist mergers between state + corporate power regardless of candidate.
Both candidates agree fully on this. Oil company profits have surged under Biden. Cooperation with big tech companies (for example banning competition or manipulating online speech) have happened under Biden.
You are under this mentality that this is a bump in the road. We have already started turning sharply to the right back when Trump was first elected and then we accelerated the shift during and after COVID.
Either way we’re going to see war, economic instability, and political radicalism. The game is over, we have lost.
I’m going to at least keep my human dignity and vote blank on the next ballot. I cannot in good conscience play a role in this conversion process.
Are you a bot? Keep saying the same thing without addressing what I’m saying.
A) right now the American has a choice between Biden and Trump.
B) you are claiming that you either vote for Biden or democracy ends
C) if there is no real practical choice, there is no real democracy.
Political theater. We’re becoming a warped version of Soviet style system. Mock elections, need to pretend to care about things you don’t actually care about, self censorship, etc.
This is standard campaigning strategy. If the news cycle is bad for your candidate, try to refocus the narrative. Now people aren’t talking about Biden’s age but the SC decision.
They’re making a bigger deal about it than it actually is in order to better their chances for campaign.
I don’t see the conspiracy in this, it’s standard stuff.
Democracy’s already gone if you don’t have a choice. Little difference in the long term between either candidate. We’re on the way to an authoritarian capitalist state much like China either way.
I think the Dems are trying to spin this as another item in the “war for Democracy” when really it’s just the SC re-affirming the constitution. It’s also very conveniently timed to detract attention from the growing calls for Biden to step down after his less than ideal debate performance.
When an item gets put onto the political agenda list, it becomes polarized and if you are on Party A or Party B you immediately support or reject it based on affiliation with little thought.
If your choices are vote for A and democracy ends or vote for B, it isn’t really a choice. If it isn’t a choice, it’s not a democracy. It’s political theater. Not unlike mock elections in dictatorships.
You’re fucked either way, both choices are pathways to the same destination. Just at different speeds/ different routes.
He spent an entire week focusing on just this debate at Camp David.
Why would he be tired? What other engagements did he have?
Well yeah it’s a catastrophe. You can’t avoid it. Realistically, Trump was already edging out Biden in the polls, including the 6 swing states.
They need a new candidate immediately… but nobody else who has the party blessing (newman, kamala, Michelle, etc) polls as good against Trump as Biden.
So what do they do? Damned if you do, damned if you dont. They are probably goinf to lose the election.
The age thing was already a concern. Now it’s a panic. Even top Dems are avoiding question of whether to remove Biden.
The debate was a catastrophe. It really couldn’t have gone much worse.
First, this conversation has little to do with fair use. Fair use is when there is an acceptable reason to break copyright. For example when you are making a parody or critique or for education purposes.
What we are talking about is the act of reading and/or learning and then using that information in order to synthesize new material. This is essentially the entire point of education. When someone goes to art school, they study many different artists and their techniques. They learn from these techniques as they merge them together in different ways to create novel art.
Everybody recognizes this is perfectly OK and to assume otherwise is absurd. So what we are talking about is not fair use, but extracting data from copyrighted material and using it to create novel material.
The distinction here is you claim when this process is automated, it should become illegal. Why?
My opinion is if it’s legal for a human to do, it should be legal for a human to automate.
10% of people who voted for Biden last time are switching to Trump according to a survey from a few months ago.
What’s the limit? This needs to be absolutely explicit and easy to understand because this is what LLMs are doing. They take hundreds of thousands of similar algorithms and they create an amalgamation of it.
When is it copying and when it is “inspiration”? What’s the line between learning and copying?
I have no problem copying code either. The question is at what point does it go from
To
How abstracted does it have to be before it’s OK? If you write a merge sort, it might be similar to the one you learned when you were studying data structures.
Should you make sure you attribute your data structure textbook every time you write a merge sort?
Are you understanding the point I’m trying to get at?
Well let’s say there’s an algorithm to find length of longest palindrome with a set of letters. I look at 20 different implementations. Some people use hashmaps, some don’t. Some do it recursively, some don’t. Etc
I consider all of them and create my own. I decide to implement myself both recursive and hash map but also add certain novel elements.
Am I copying code? Am I breaking copyright? Can I claim I wrote it? Or do I have to give credit to all 20 people?
As for forbidding patents on software, I agree entirely. Would be a net positive for the world. You should be able to inspect all software that runs on your computer. Of course that’s a bit idealistic and pipe-dreamy.
Greedy people are more likely to end up wealthy. Greedy people are also more likely to end up doing ethically dubious things.
Of course, any wealth at all is unethical if you’re being honest with yourself. There’s a famous passage in the Bible.
Jesus was out teaching his disciples or healing people- whatever he did. And a rich man comes up to him and asks
“Jesus, I want to follow you and go to heaven. Please tell me what I should do”
What did Jesus say? Jesus told him to a) sell all of his shit b) give that money to charity c) physically follow me around
What did rich guy do? Have an epiphany about morality and living the good life?
No, he cried. He cried because he didn’t actually want to let go of the good things he had for morality.
All of us in first world nations are guilty of this to some extent. The way our world is shaped you essentially have to be unethical to survive. There are levels to it, of course. But I think your perspective is too black and white and needs a little nuance. Seem like a teenager.