Manuel_D

61 ms·

931.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Clinton got twice as much corporate donations as Trump in 2016, but she still lost. It's not so simple.
932.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Donations to political campaigns are still limited. Even after Citizens United. What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat clima
933.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.
934.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Making boycotting a crime seems a lot like proscribing a political view. I doubt the law has been enforced this way - or enforced at all - but if you went to the grocery store, saw a product sold by an Israeli company and decided not to buy
935.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
> Folks that think that Trump and his friends like "freedom of speech" or any of the type of techno freedoms we take for granted are in for a deeply rude awakening. The reality is that democrats are so, SO much better on most c
936.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
The logo was transferred to the WordPress foundation nonprofit, which in turn let people build products and services using the trademark free of charge. This is where the "free to use" comes from. Except secretly, the WordrPress t
937.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
If you use the magic wand, and then do anything with the selection mask - cropping, changing hue, etc. - then you're creating imagery with AI.
938.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
It's unclear if WP Engine is actually violating any copyright or trademark: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/automattic-deman... > WP Engine's lawsuit points to promises made by Mullen
939.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
With respect to passwords, biometrics and password managers (or better yet, public key infrastructure) is the solution. Not privacy booths. If I had my way, apps wouldn't let users pick their own passwords: they'd email users 30+
940.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
The facial recognition runs in the cloud, via Primeyes https://pimeyes.com/en - not on the glasses themselves. It seems rather click baitey to highlight the Ray Ban smart glasses when pretty much any video camera can be use
941.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
So your understanding of the law is that any use of the inpainting tool in modern versions of Photoshop makes the image impossible to copyright? Heck, even the magic-wand select is using AI to fine tune its behavior.
942.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Your concern stems from spherical cows: you're treating law enforcement as automatons that can't think. In your scenario, the police will either interview the student depicted in the video who will confirm that it's fake. Or
943.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Adobe trains its models on Adobe Stock and public domain images > Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content. Firefly generative AI models are trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public
944.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
But the images that went into building the models are copyrightable. Adobe has a license to use them for AI training, but the authors still have copyrighht. So as per your logic the answer would actually be "no, these images aren&#x2
945.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Talk podcasts are copyrighted. I'm not sure why you think a discussion wouldn't be copyrightable.
946.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Photoshop is an AI tool. For several years now, inpainting and other Photoshop tools have been powered by AI.
947.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
The inpainting tool in Photoshop is AI. If you use the inpainting tool, congratulations you're an AI artist. Should copyrighted of any images produced with the inpainting tool be ignored?
948.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I trust the police. I think you have a very warped understanding of how the police would respond to such a video. Their first thing would be to interview the student in the video. And the student w
949.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Again, the harm comes from dishonesty not the deepfake itself. Calling someone's employer and falsely accusing them of stealing from their past companies or abusing their co-workers achieves the same purpose. If a company fires an empl
950.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
The takeway is that harassment laws restrict what people are saying to you, not what they're saying about you among each other. If the police actually tried to prosecute them for harassment, the question the courts would be asking
951.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
> make some teacher’s life hell by faking them having sex with a student; The harm comes from falsely accusing someone of rape, not the deepfake itself. This can be done with or without a deepfake. As a counterpoint: if a group of boys
952.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
I think most women aren't on board with people drawing erotic pictures of them with pen and paper either. I think most women aren't on board with their peers fantasizing about them - even if it's completely limited to their i
953.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Harassment is a lot narrower than people tend to think. It restricts people from makings communications that the subject does not want to be a recipient of. It does not restrict people communicating between each other about the subject. Abb
954.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Doctored photos have been around for most of the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...
955.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
The fact that Asian enrollment is about the same as it was during the years that racial discrimination was legal is exactly why it's suspected that Yale is still engaging in discrimination. I'm seriously confused as to why you thi
956.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Yes, university donors often give grants to specific programs and initiatives. And those very same donors are the ones that have the biggest stake in preserving legacy admissions. They'd have zero issues funding a legal defense of lega
957.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
Stanford alone has an endowment upwards of 30 billion dollars. They absolutely have the resources to fight the change.
958.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
"Public interest" isn't an excuse to strip tax exempt status or withhold funding on a whim. The government cannot simply remove the tax exempt status of the NRA or Planned Parenthood because it decides that the organization d
959.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
For the third time, you're ignoring the fact that this the the first year of admissions after racial discrimination was banned . Many other elite institutions saw rises in admissions of Asian applicants. The courts found that race bas
960.
by Manuel_D 2y ago
But this isn't just a typical year. This immediately after racial discrimination was banned. Yale had previously insisted that absent race-based affirmative action there'd be an even larger overrepresentation of Asians and reducti

More ›