General_Effort

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

I read that in an Austrian accent. In my head, of course.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago

I was thinking of that guy when I added the "rarely".

Still, how crazy was he? He fell in "love" with an actress after seeing her in a movie. Then he took a cue from that movie and tried to assassinate the US president Ronald Reagan to impress her. Crazy. Delusional. But how crazy is that really in comparison to, say, what the current US president believes and does?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago

Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.

I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago

The public domain is not just useful but unavoidable and necessary.

You could imagine a world where all available physical matter is owned property. But intellectual property is an arbitrary legal creation. It is not finite.

EG Trademark law. Only the owner of a mark may use it to trade. The mark proclaims who is responsible for a product. If there were no unowned trademarks, you could not start a business without first paying off some owner. This would clearly be economically disastrous. So having unused, potential trademarks is necessary.

EG Patent law. Only the patent owner may use a certain invention; some trick of doing something. The patent is published so that others may learn from it and perhaps come up with other ways of achieving the same end. After (usually) 20 years, everyone may use the invention. Scientific theories, mathematical theorems, and other such things are always public domain.

If patents were broader and/or lasted for longer, you'd eventually not be able to do much business without having to pay off some owner. The owners could basically demand a tax on any kind of economic activity and deny consent for anything that might threaten their status. Progress would grind to a halt. It would be a new kind of feudalism.

So, a public domain is not just useful but absolutely necessary to our civilization.


Anything could be made into intellectual property. For example tax farming in ancient Rome and elsewhere. Monarchs granted special privileges, such as granting the East India Company a monopoly on trade. Or they might grant some person the monopoly on opening coffee houses in the country or a certain city. A title of nobility could be seen as a kind of intellectual property. Such titles were traded in a limited way. Anything that can be allowed or forbidden by the government could be turned into intellectual property.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Bullshit. Mentally ill people rarely commit assassinations or mass shootings. That sort of thing requires planning and foresight; a degree of functioning in society that mentally ill people are rarely able to perform by definition.

The perpetrators might be "crazy" in a colloquial sense, but so is the typical right-wing celebrity.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

Marine Le Pen isn't the first prominent French politician to be disqualified from public office. Since it stopped being automatic, it has already affected big names such as like her father, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac, Charles Pasqua, and Bernard Tapie.

This isn't exclusive to right-wing politicians; the disqualification penalty has been imposed by French justice on several dozens of elected officials and public representatives since 1992. It was in 1992 that the concept was introduced into French law. It was even applied automatically for a series of offences until a reform in 2010. Since then, it's a standalone penalty that must be decided on by a judge. It can last up to 5 years for an offence and 10 years for a crime. Here is a small selection of well-known male and female politicians who have been sentenced to this penalty (listed alphabetically).

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/sarkozy-tapie-le-pen-famous-cases-of-ineligibility-in-france/ar-AA1C01vk

[–] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago

I mean, howany people are you really going “to get” with this?

Depends what you are looking for. They want to use this to find "child porn", meaning any nudes of people under 18. How careful are horny teens going to be when they exchange nude selfies? Would a 13yo even know to be careful?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
  1. Get humped by a dog.
  2. Whine like a bitch.
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

That's not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.

What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an "artist".

You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.

European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It's quite harmful to the public, actually.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

The EU has funded a bunch of such little portals for various things but no one uses them. There are also portals to share code made for/by some european governments, like France, Germany, Netherlands, and some others.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

That was a deepfake. They did a dirty on him.

 

TLDR: SUVs cause traffic jams.

Actual study (full article): The rise of trucks and the fall of throughput by Yang Gao & David Levinson

 

Interessant, dass Meta das regulatorische Risiko eingeht. Man ist sich wohl halbwegs sicher, dass wenigstens manche LLama-Modelle EU konform sind.

826
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I feel that “outgroup dumb” is shitposting but it’s from a real poll.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/5057-understanding-how-marginal-taxes-work-its-all-part

 

I wonder if you could analyze internet discussions for an effect.

 

Den meisten ist wahrscheinlich nicht klar, dass es einen Konflikt zwischen Datenschutz und Privatsphäre geben könnte. Deswegen erstmal die Erklärung.

In der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union steht es so:

Artikel 7

Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens

Jede Person hat das Recht auf Achtung ihres Privat- und Familienlebens, ihrer Wohnung sowie ihrer Kommunikation.

Artikel 8

Schutz personenbezogener Daten

(1) Jede Person hat das Recht auf Schutz der sie betreffenden personenbezogenen Daten.

(2) Diese Daten dürfen nur nach Treu und Glauben für festgelegte Zwecke und mit Einwilligung der betroffenen Person oder auf einer sonstigen gesetzlich geregelten legitimen Grundlage verarbeitet werden. Jede Person hat das Recht, Auskunft über die sie betreffenden erhobenen Daten zu erhalten und die Berichtigung der Daten zu erwirken.

(3) Die Einhaltung dieser Vorschriften wird von einer unabhängigen Stelle überwacht.

Es sind 2 verschiedene Grundrechte, die nebeneinander stehen. Datenschutz ist kein Mittel zum Zweck, sondern ein Selbstzweck. Natürlich spielen auch andere Rechte eine mögliche Rolle bei Gesetzesvorschlägen, die diese beiden Rechte betreffen. ZB: Recht auf Sicherheit, Informationsfreiheit, Schutz geistigen Eigentums, ...

Bei Vorschlägen zur "Chatkontrolle" könnte so eine Abwägung früher oder später nötig sein. Es sollen Nachrichten auf bestimmte Inhalte überprüft werden.

Die eigenen Nachrichten sind natürlich auf die eigene Person bezogene Daten, also greift das Recht auf Datenschutz. Das ist allerdings nicht unbedingt ein Problem, denn schließlich wäre die Grundlage für die Verarbeitung ja ein Gesetz. Es wäre aber in jedem Fall eine deutliche Missachtung der Kommunikation.

Eine Sache, die mit "Chatkontrolle" gemacht werden soll, ist das Aufspüren von polizeibekannten Missbrauchsbildern. Solche Bilder sind natürlich auch auf die abgebildeten Personen, das Opfer, bezogene Daten. Hier würde man also in die private Kommunikation eingreifen, um das Recht auf Datenschutz durchzusetzen.

Bei anderen heißen Eisen, wie Rachepornos oder Deepfakes, hat man denselben Konflikt. Allgemein ist Datenschutz ein Recht über Datenverarbeitung, was Speichern und Teilen einschließt, auch auf Papier. Das lässt sich eben nur durch Überwachung durchsetzen.

Früher oder später muss es zu einer Abwägung kommen. Es scheint aber nirgendwo diskutiert zu werden.

Also was meint ihr?

 

https://germany.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/deutschland-entsteht-zweite-europaische-ki-fabrik-2025-03-12_de

Mehr Rechenzentren für die Wissenschaft ist ja gut, aber warum hat sich Brüssel bloß das Wort "KI-Fabrik" ausgedacht?

 

Die Tendenz ist natürlich zu einer stärkeren Kommerzialisierung, unabhängig von der neuen Regierung. Ideen wie Datentreuhänder, oder PIMS zeigen, wo die Reise hingehen soll. Vor ein paar Monaten gab es ja Gesetz, das "Dienste zur Einwilligungsverwaltung" möglich machen sollte.

Aber diese Vorschriften und ganzen Überlegungen sind weitgehend losgelöst von den wirtschaftlichen und technischen Bedingungen. Ich hab keine Ahnung, ob das nur Unkenntnis ist oder absichtlich so vermurkst wird.

Weiß jemand mehr?

view more: next ›