A lot of that information can be weirdly public. Looking up property records often comes with data about utility bills and taxes, and their payment statuses.

Yeah, and it’s not like you want the information out there, it’s just that in my opinion it’s not something I would pay money for. Having the authority to make the request doesn’t mean that the party on the other end is obligated to comply, or in some cases even legally permitted to.

I’ve used Google’s service where they send you an email to review results if they find something, and my Google results for my incredibly distinctive name are basically only professional resources that I kinda want to be findable.

Honestly? It’s not something I would pay for. Google has their own service where they’ll let you know if they find your information and you can ask them to remove the search result.
Beyond that, there’s some information that you just fundamentally can’t make private and no service can get taken down.
Most data mining sites just collect those public records and put them next to each other, so they get a pile of your name, birthday, where you were born, how active you are as a voter and all that stuff.

Removing your address from Google maps just seems silly to me. That there is a residence there is fundamentally public information, not being on maps doesn’t make it less public it just probably causes issues for delivery drivers.

Anyone who has your data and is going to be a jerk about it isn’t going to listen to a request to take it down either. They’re just going to send you spam messages.

The odds of being Targeted by a determined individual who’s focused explicitly on you is low. They tend to target a broad swath of people, and then dig in on people who take the bait a few times.

I have never felt so old.

Name, address, and phone number of the account holder used to be published in books that got sent to everyone in the city and also just left lying in boxes that had phones in them if you needed to make a call while you weren’t home, because your phone used to be tied to a physical location.
You also used to have to pay extra to make calls to places far away because it used more phone circuits. And by “far away” I mean roughly 50 miles.

It’s not the biggest thing in the world, privacy wise, since a surprising amount of information is considered public.
If you know an address, it’s pretty much trivial to find the owners name, basic layout of the house, home value, previous owners, utility bill information, tax payments, and so on. I looked up my information and was able to pretty easily get the records for my house, showing I pay my bills on time, when I got my air conditioner replaced and who the contractor who did it was.

As an example, here’s the property record for a parking structure owned by the state of Michigan. I chose a public building accessible by anyone and owned by a government to avoid randomly doxing someone, but it’s really as easy as searching for public records for some county or city and you’ll find something pretty fast.

Most voters don’t have a business and never will.

The value of a net new business is that it creates more jobs and economic activity.
Most people benefit from more jobs to either work at or drive up labor demand.
Per that school of economic thought, incentivizing a new business adds more activity to the market and more opportunity for people to find ways to innovate, provide value and become profitable.
Giving money to an existing struggling business is subsidizing a businesses that’s already demonstrated that it’s not working.

However, we’re both putting too much into it. The goal is to say $50k for small business, because people like a business friendly atmosphere.
Trump gets credit for giving tax cuts to businesses for stock buyback, which only helps investors. The goal is to court people who want pro business policies without literal handouts to corporations.

I re-traced my steps, and the source was both dogshit, and didn’t site primary sources. I edited the original comment to convey non-compliance before hospitalization was required.

Ultimately “was sick, didn’t listen when doctors said to stop drinking” conveys the same doubts that “tried to stop but failed” does about suitability for a donor liver.

In isolation it’s not great, but in conjunction with your own advocate talking about you not following a doctor’s orders? It doesn’t bolster confidence that the individual would follow doctors orders in the future.

It means she hasn’t been able to quit drinking!

Yes, that’s exactly the point. It’s quite unlikely her medical troubles started when she was hospitalized.
A history of not following medical advice casts doubt about a future of following medical advice.

Yes, addiction is a disease that the individual may lack the ability to control. That doesn’t change that it’s a risk factor for non-compliance that’s absent in others who need the transplant.

Not made up, I just read a couple other articles that mentioned it.
It’s also part of the whole “the only people who can talk freely are the people with an interest in the doctors being wrong”.

People aren’t turned away because they didn’t exercise or because they work too much or they don’t get enough sleep or they didn’t follow doctor’s orders. So, in Nathan and Amanda’s case, you’re seeing someone being told, ‘You didn’t follow doctor’s orders, so we’re not going to help you. We’re going to let you die’

As a quote from the other interested party, as well as the “in documents shared with CTV News, notes show […] their decision was based on ‘minimal abstinence outside of hospital.’” is pretty much spelling it out.

It actually takes surprisingly little if it’s done consistently and without giving your body time to rest.

A standard drink has roughly 14g of ethanol in it. People with notable liver damage tend to have a history of a decade or more drinking 30-50 grams a day, or two to three drinks.
People who drink more than 80g a day for a decade are almost guaranteed to have liver problems (~5-6 drinks).

Obviously drinking a half gallon a day is worse, but consistent long term drinking is also not great.

It is essentially a poison that’s only around because it’s easy to make and traditional at this point.

Yeah, it’s definitely faster, but I’m not sure it’s going to make too much of a difference for a Minecraft server.

With setting it up being a bit annoying by hand, I’d still rank the router option higher even if it’s a worse VPN. Otherwise you risk ending up in that yak shaving situation where you’re fighting with routing tables and DNS when you wanted a Minecraft server.

Oh for sure. What I meant was “check router for a built in VPN and use it if it has one, otherwise use wireguard because it’s the easiest”.

The specific VPN doesn’t really matter so much. The built-in one would be the easiest, so checking for a solution that took a few clicks is worth it. :)

Well, stopped drinking when she got the diagnosis, not before, didn’t comply with medical advice to stop drinking before hospitalization, and as they said in the article there are a lot of criteria for a living donation, and it’s only an option if you otherwise qualify for a donation because of the possibility of rejection requiring an urgent transplant.

A different article said they were trying to raise funds to get the transplant done at an unspecified European hospital, so “yes”. I think it’s telling that they didn’t go to the US, a north American country, or specify the country.
It’s worth remembering that the only people who can talk freely are the people who were decided against and are talking about suing.

No one wanted her to die, but with organ transplants it’s a case where you’re more or less picking who will die. Phrasing it as being punished for bad behavior is unfair to the people who need to decide which people are likely enough to benefit, which isn’t easy.

I would use something like wireguard, or another VPN service you can host yourself if your router supports it natively.

From the looks of it Minecraft servers seem to have dogshit authentication, so using some form of private network setup is going to be your best move.

Eeeh, I still think diving into the weeds of the technical is the wrong way to approach it. Their argument is that training isn’t copyright violation, not that sufficient training dilutes the violation.

Even if trained only on one source, it’s quite unlikely that it would generate copyright infringing output. It would be vastly less intelligible, likely to the point of overtly garbled words and sentences lacking much in the way of grammar.

If what they’re doing is technically an infringement or how it works is entirely aside from a discussion on if it should be infringement or permitted.

Basing your argument around how the model or training system works doesn’t seem like the best way to frame your point to me. It invites a lot of mucking about in the details of how the systems do or don’t work, how humans learn, and what “learning” and “knowledge” actually are.

I’m a human as far as I know, and it’s trivial for me to regurgitate my training data. I regularly say things that are either directly references to things I’ve heard, or accidentally copy them, sometimes with errors.
Would you argue that I’m just a statistical collage of the things I’ve experienced, seen or read? My brain has as many copies of my training data in it as the AI model, namely zero, but “Captain Picard of the USS Enterprise sat down for a rousing game of chess with his friend Sherlock Holmes, and then Shakespeare came in dressed like Mickey mouse and said ‘to be or not to be, that is the question, for tis nobler in the heart’ or something”. Direct copies of someone else’s work, as well as multiple copyright infringements.
I’m also shit at drawing with perspective. It comes across like a drunk toddler trying their hand at cubism.

Arguing about how the model works or the deficiencies of it to justify treating it differently just invites fixing those issues and repeating the same conversation later. What if we make one that does work how humans do in your opinion? Or it properly actually extracts the information in a way that isn’t just statistically inferred patterns, whatever the distinction there is? Does that suddenly make it different?

You don’t need to get bogged down in the muck of the technical to say that even if you conceed every technical point, we can still say that a non-sentient machine learning system can be held to different standards with regards to copyright law than a sentient person. A person gets to buy a book, read it, and then carry around that information in their head and use it however they want. Not-A-Person does not get to read a book and hold that information without consent of the author.
Arguing why it’s bad for society for machines to mechanise the production of works inspired by others is more to the point.

Computers think the same way boats swim. Arguing about the difference between hands and propellers misses the point that you don’t want a shrimp boat in your swimming pool. I don’t care why they’re different, or that it technically did or didn’t violate the “free swim” policy, I care that it ruins the whole thing for the people it exists for in the first place.

I think all the AI stuff is cool, fun and interesting. I also think that letting it train on everything regardless of the creators wishes has too much opportunity to make everything garbage. Same for letting it produce content that isn’t labeled or cited.
If they can find a way to do and use the cool stuff without making things worse, they should focus on that.

Yup. :/

I looked it up and it’s not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.

Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said “everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here’s why a delay would actually be a good idea”, it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.

I’m unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.

“Not offending either party” is definitely not a partisan act. It’s almost the definition of nonpartisan.

I can’t fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn’t object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to “assist the court”, it’s pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf

Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn’t want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don’t turn up anything particularly relevant.

Well, I don’t think anyone was saying don’t punish political candidates, least of all me.

Being cognizant of a political context for an action just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, even if it’s not how I think it should have played out.

Whatever sentence is given will have an impact on the political landscape in which that sentence is carried out, which can potentially directly undermine the sentence.

A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just “guilty but still speaking publicly”.

Still don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.

It is actually normal for sentencing to take a while after conviction.