Feel free to replace it with the remote tool of your choice. Just keep in mind that it needs to be easy to use from the supportee's end (double click, read a code).
It's going to sound really silly but here goes:
Ensure their background is the same as it was (seriously, they often use it as an extra way to find things).
Where possible, use windows icons for desktop shortcuts and mask link names to match vocab they're familiar with.
Have rustdesk set up with a link saying "Let help me".
Make sure they have their password written down somewhere.
Make sure you have their password written down somewhere.
Where possible have background updating, where not possible have a .sh file to do it for them.
Add desktop links for things like downloads, documents and pictures.
These are tips for any distro when moving less tech savvy relatives over. For those that like to game, ensure your fs on their gaming drive is a Linux one as it stops weird behaviour. Also, you know, install the games for them!
I mean, it is. Everyone else just doesn't get to see it!
Sounds like the Peter principle at work, ensuring that Parkinson's law will be exemplified.
If your employees are living their lives to the clock, they're counting down the seconds rather than ticking off their tasks.
Ehh no, you genuinely can't patent any form of mathematics.
Mathematics falls under "exists in nature" (if you are a Platonist) or "abstract ideas" (gets even clear thinking Constructivists). So they're excluded from parents and copyrights no matter how complex the system
Textbooks usually belong to the publisher (academics commonly have to pirate their own papers), so that's usually a bust.
You might be able to patent an algorithm associated with a branch of mathematics, but that's trickier than you think. Blank slate development can, and does, happen (see Compaq's reimplementation of IBM's bios). You're banking on it not being reversed engineer able (spoiler, don't take that bet if you've published your proofs!).
I mean, the point was definitely stated as protecting creators. We've seen some solid David Vs Goliath stories of artists taking people who steal their work down.
However, this isn't the reality for the majority of copyright. A lot of it just ties up works to companies owned by speculative shareholders (think of the lord of the rings).
Limits to duration would definitely help this, and we'd be on the same page there. However, I do still wonder if it shouldn't be shorter for certain things (e.g. medical treatments or manufacturing), with the option of a public domain buyout to cover (reasonable, non-inflated) research costs.
My view is that of a scholar - one who does devote a large part of their life to freely creating and disseminating knowledge. I do indeed hold a strong bias here, one I'm happy to admit.
Much of the time, when I've run across copyright, it is rarely (if ever come to think of it) in the name of the author (a common requirement of journals being the giving up of ownership of one's work). It normally falls to a company; one usually driven by shareholder value with little (if no) concern for the author's rights. This tends to be the rule rather than the exception, and I'd argue that copyright in it's current incarnation merely provides a legal avenue to steal the work of another, or hold to ransom their works from future generations. This contradicts the first point, and also the second (paywalled papers); indeed the lack of availability of academic works (created for free, or with public funding) is, I believe, a key driver of inequality in this world.
One can withold or even selectively share knowledge, and history will never know what that has cost us.
In terms of AI training, I wouldn't say it is copyright infringement even in spirit, and I say this as one whose works are vomited out verbatim by LLMs when questioned about the field. The comparison with speaking is an interesting one, for we generally do try and attribute ideas if we hold the speaker in esteem, or feel their name will enhance our point. An AI, however, is not speaking of their own volition, but is instead acting in the interest of the company hosting them (and so would fall under the professional label rather than the personal). This might contradict your final point, if one assumes AI progresses as a subscription product (which looks likely).
I think your framework has merit, mostly because it is built on ideals (and we need more such thinking in the world); however, it does not quite match the observed data. Though, it does suggest the rules a better incarnation of copyright could adhere to.
More so, I think no-one has an issue with training publicly available models - it's the ones under copyright themselves people are leery of.
Oh, that copyright is bollocks. If you follow its intent, you should be including academics, and that state of affairs would be abhorrent (we'd stagnate).
That's rather the irony - mathematics takes a great deal of work and creativity. You can't copyright mathematical work; but, put a set of lines together and shade in the polygons created and suddenly it becomes copyrightable. Somehow one is a creative work whose author requires protection, and the other is volunteered for involuntary public service.
The reason mathematics cannot be copyrighted: because it's a "discovery", rather than a "creation" (very much a point of view, and far from irrefutable fact). In mathematics, one should be aware, that the concept and it's explanation (proof) are much the same thing.
All in all, the argument is either mathematical work should fall under copyright (an abhorrent idea), or copyright should be abolished as it rarely (if ever) does much good.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a play in the new year and see if it'll work ^_^