There was a period of blissful ignorance circa 2006 where the only thing I knew about him was that he was rich and starred in the apprentice. Then a black man became president and the world hasn't been free of his stench ever since.

unique

"unique new IP right?" Bruh you're talking about basic fucking intellectual property law. Just because someone posts something publicly on the internet doesn't mean that it can be used for whatever anybody likes. This is so well-established, that every major art gallery and social media website has a clause in their terms of service stating that you are granting them a license to redistribute that content. And most websites also explicitly state that when you upload your work to their site that you still retain your copyright of that work.

For example (emphasis mine):

FurAffinity:

4.1 When you upload content to Fur Affinity via our services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to use, host, store, cache, reproduce, publish, display (publicly or otherwise), perform (publicly or otherwise), distribute, transmit, modify, adapt, and create derivative works of, that content. These permissions are purely for the limited purposes of allowing us to provide our services in accordance with their functionality (hosting and display), improve them, and develop new services. These permissions do not transfer the rights of your content or allow us to create any deviations of that content outside the aforementioned purposes.

Inkbunny:

Posting Content

You keep copyright of any content posted to Inkbunny. For us to provide these services to you, you grant Inkbunny non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use and archive your artwork in accordance with this agreement.

When you submit artwork or other content to Inkbunny, you represent and warrant that:

* you own copyright to the content, or that you have permission to use the content, and that you have the right to display, reproduce and sell the content. You license Inkbunny to use the content in accordance with this agreement;

DeviantArt:

16. Copyright in Your Content

DeviantArt does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant DeviantArt a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, third parties will be able to copy, distribute and display your Content using readily available tools on their computers for this purpose although other than by linking to your Content on DeviantArt any use by a third party of your Content could violate paragraph 4 of these Terms and Conditions unless the third party receives permission from you by license.

e621:

When you upload content to e621 via our services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to use, host, store, cache, reproduce, publish, display (publicly or otherwise), perform (publicly or otherwise), distribute, transmit, downsample, convert, adapt, and create derivative works of, that content. These permissions are purely for the limited purposes of allowing us to provide our services in accordance with their functionality (hosting and display), improve them, and develop new services. These permissions do not transfer the rights of your content or allow us to create any deviations of that content outside the aforementioned purposes.

Xitter:

Your Rights and Grant of Rights in the Content

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.

Facebook:

The permissions you give us We need certain permissions from you to provide our services:

• Permission to use content you create and share: Some content that you share or upload, such as photos or videos, may be protected by intellectual property laws.

• You retain ownership of the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and other Meta Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.

• However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.

• Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point very clear: Every social media website and art gallery is built on an assumption that the person uploading art A) retains the copyright over the items they upload, B) that other people and organizations have NO rights to copyrighted works unless explicitly stated otherwise, and C) that 3rd parties accessing this material do not have any rights to uploaded works, since they never negotiated a license to use these works.

What, asking experts who have studied a topic and has forgotten more about systems of governance and effective anti corruption efforts than I'll ever know is somehow bad now? The fuck?

And the second and third quotes, that were you?

Take the goddamn L, man. You made a statement in ignorance, you were wrong, and you were given evidence showing you were wrong. Accept it, learn from your mistake, and be better in the future.

~~Oh, okay, he's a garden variety nutjob who went off his meds for too long. Glad it could be cleared up.~~

EDIT: I realized this was a bit flippant after thinking back on it. It's obviously tragic that this guy wasn't able to get the help he obviously needed before it was too late. I'm relieved it wasn't because of obvious partisan leanings (i.e. he was protesting the trial in one way or the other) and that it appears his decision to set fire there appears to have been more to draw attention to his message. I won't even say that his ideas are entirely wrong--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if billionaires were pumping crypto as a rugpull, but there's a lot of obvious delusions (like claiming that the Simpsons, the Beatles, George Orwell, and various pop icons were part of a conspiracy to normalize doom-and-gloom sentiment). I just hope this doesn't delay the trial too much, and I hope it's not a sign of things to come.

I haven't accidentally deleted a bunch of data yet (which, considering 99% of my interaction with Linux is when I'm SSH'd into a user's server, I am very paranoid about not doing), but I have run fsck on a volume without mounting the read/write flashcache with dirty blocks on it first.

Oops.

And look at the ttrpg.network community for a counterexample, they still have a pinned post on the dndmemes subreddit advertising Lemmy and ttrpgmemes gets like .1% of the traffic dndmemes does. And this is still after a months-long rebellion complete with allowing NSFW and restricting submissions to a single user account, both things that would normally kill a subreddit dead.

The problem is that there's no incentive for employees to stay beyond a few years. Why spend months or years training someone if they leave after the second year?

But then you have to question why employees aren't loyal any longer, and that's because pensions and benefits have eroded, and your pay doesn't keep up as you stay longer at a company. Why stay at a company for 20, 30, or 40 years when you can come out way ahead financially by hopping jobs every 2-4 years?

It means you can get a divorce for any reason. Without that, you have to show evidence of wrongdoing by your spouse in court before you can get divorced. Needless to say, this can be very difficult if your spouse is good at covering their tracks, or if you can't afford a lawyer to help present your case.

I've had an AI bot trained on our company's knowledge base literally make up links to nonexistent articles out of whole cloth. It's so useless I just stopped bothering to ask it anything, I save more time looking it up myself.

If you believe Google isn't planning on eventually training Bard on Gmail, then I have a half dozen bridges to sell you.

I'm going off the Ars Technica article on this 🤷

Today's launch is for the PC version only. Versions for Mac, PS5 (September 6), and, eventually, Xbox consoles are due to arrive in the coming months.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/08/baldurs-gate-3-early-impressions-youll-spend-whole-weeks-in-here-and-love-it/