freejazz

32 ms·

751.
by freejazz 1y ago
> and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. No it's not. And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposte
752.
by freejazz 1y ago
They also argued that they in no way could ever actually license all the materials they ingested
753.
by freejazz 1y ago
Ask Jane Street, not the poster.
754.
by freejazz 1y ago
Like the culture of OpenAI where Microsoft threatened to poach the entire staff so they caved?
755.
by freejazz 1y ago
The sentence that is quoted is about how both of these things are simultaneously happening right now, even if one was precipitated earlier
756.
by freejazz 1y ago
> What is the point of trying to save this satellite data if the very people most affected dont care for it? Because people still should not suffer... jeez.
757.
by freejazz 1y ago
>The legal system does not have a monopoly on defining words or being a source of truth. And it is obvious that the legal system's reasoning lines up with the action in this case - otherwise the action wouldn't have happened! I
758.
by freejazz 1y ago
Search is a specific term with specific meaning that is not "anything that is getting searched through" > We're right back to where we started, with you wanting to rule out people's legitimate concerns by defining ter
759.
by freejazz 1y ago
> the desire to be free from unreasonable searches applies to the judiciary as well as the executive. Discovery is not a search. There's no point to having this discussion when you keep pushing these obtuse misunderstandings of word
760.
by freejazz 1y ago
The point is that the conversation was perfectly parsable and your repeated misunderstanding brings nothing to it. I made that point several posts ago but for some reason you keep responding to me and I do not understand why. > but my ar
761.
by freejazz 1y ago
Lol that's more likely dimes square, bankers don't really live in Fidi for the most part.
762.
by freejazz 1y ago
Eh it's mostly the oblivious citibikers and delivery riders that get me. I like riding with the cars, you can flow at a smooth 20-25mph without the fear that a salmoning deliverista is going to round a corner head-first into you.
763.
by freejazz 1y ago
Yeah, he can F right off as far as I'm concerned. Not sure I'd lament the bike infrastructure (I don't think it's the problem and I hate riding in the bike lanes, they're full of idiots) and the state of the subway
764.
by freejazz 1y ago
Not a huge surprise to anyone who lives in this city when so much of daily aggravation comes down to road use, either as a driver or a pedestrian. Cuomo also ran an anti-bike campaign while Zohran ran the opposite.
765.
by freejazz 1y ago
If you want to pretend to not understand the difference between the different branches of gov't that's fine. I'm sure there is a childrens' playground where you can have a similar level of nuanced discussion, as to your
766.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's a legal dispute. The role the "government" plays in a legal dispute is very clear. You're being obnoxiously pedantic.
767.
by freejazz 1y ago
So what? The poster was obviously referring to the executive so pretending like there was any ambiguity was ridiculous
768.
by freejazz 1y ago
> How so? The comment I was responding to made no such distinction Should I mention that water is wet every time I mention water? The executive is the executive, the judicial is the judicial. It's inherent in the discussion and pret
769.
by freejazz 1y ago
Tech coverage of legal stuff is terrible. Ars has zero interest in representing this story in a fair way. They are making controversy for page views.
770.
by freejazz 1y ago
This only demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between the executive and judicial branches. It does not demonstrate a good point.
771.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's a routine discovery hearing regarding documents that OpenAI creates and keeps for a period of time in the normal practice of its business.
772.
by freejazz 1y ago
Method of interrogation? I'm not a mind reader. If you don't want to make yourself clear, that's fine. If you want to be petty, that's fine as well. >Or, perhaps, that's not something known by most. I didn't
773.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's a civil case and the gov't is not involved so...
774.
by freejazz 1y ago
Well, the magistrate's job is to apply precedent, to which I have no idea why you are of the belief that this is not a routine application of 3rd party doctrine. So that's no reason to hold against the magistrate, even if you disa
775.
by freejazz 1y ago
3rd party doctrine in the US is actual law... so I'm not sure what's confusing about that. The president has no power to change discovery law. That's congress. Why would a judge abrogate US law like that?
776.
by freejazz 1y ago
I don't think a routine application of 3rd party doctrine should sink a magistrate judge.
777.
by freejazz 1y ago
Stop giving your information to third parties with the expectation that they keep it private when they wont and cannot. Your banking information is also subject to subpoena... I don't see anyone here complaining about that. Just the ho
778.
by freejazz 1y ago
>So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer? What constitutional issues do you believe are present? > There is no requirement for a lawyer to b
779.
by freejazz 1y ago
"creating mass surveillance program harming all ChatGPT users" is just taking the lawyers' words out of their mouth at face value. Totally ridiculous. And of course its going to lead to extreme skepticism from the crowd here
780.
by freejazz 1y ago
Surely you've learned in your life that whatever people might say is not true, nor is it the best reflection of their intentions...

More ›