Would it work for you to drive to a larger parking garage (or even better, use public transport to a larger subway or bus station) and then use some form of battery operated micro-transport type vehicle fit for your type of limitation to move around the sidewalks/bike lanes in what can then be a more compact city center?
This whole rapey lingo needs to fucking die already.
Maybe widely name-calling this practice for what it is could help steer companies away from this disgusting pattern.
Should we start refering to pop-ups that give no option to say “no” as something like “rape-ups”?
“I’ve created this amazing program that more or less precisely mimics the response of a human to any question!”
“What if I ask it a question where humans are well known to apply all kinds of biases? Will it give a completely unbiased answer, like some kind of paragon of virtue?”
“No”
<Surprised Pikachu face>
After checking that you can open port 53 udp yourself with, say, nc (which you tried), strace the binary that tries to open port 53 and fails, and find the system call that fails. You can compare it with an strace on nc to see how it differs.
If this doesn’t clue you in (e.g., you see two attempts to listen to the same port…) Next step would be to find in the source code where it fails (look for the error message printout) and start adding diagnostic printouts before the failing system call and compile and run your edited version.
Especially if the media is readily available elsewhere which is always the case for movies you “bought” digitally.
Except when they aren’t. Especially if located outside the US, it is far from obvious that a given movie is available through another service.
Refunding the sale price is still theft.
What did you lose in this theft?
Is there really nothing in your home right now you would be sad if someone took and just gave you the money you paid for it?
Even a digital copy of a movie may not be so easy to replace on the services I have access to.
Stores are not allowed to go home to people and take back the stuff they sold, even if they refund the price. Neither should a company that advertise “pay this price and own this movie” rather than “pay this price and rent it for an indeterminate time”.
Better yet, demand loudly to get a refund. When they say there is nothing to refund, insist that you have an email confirming a booking.
The industrial military complex is built on funding for proxy wars with Russia. I wonder if the issue this time is that they are worried that with Russia directly involved instead of by proxy, this war may end up breaking Russia if they lose. Dismantling the perpetual antagonist that motivates further funding of the war machine is not in the interest of those who make money on wars.
This is my guess as well. They have been limiting new signups for the paid service for a long time, which must mean they are overloaded; and then it makes a lot of sense to just degrade the quality of GPT-4 so they can serve all paying users. I just wish there was a way to know the “quality level” the service is operating at.
Was this around the time right after “custom GPTs” was introduced? I’ve seen posts since basically the beginning of ChatGPT claming it got stupid and thinking it was just confirmation bias. But somewhere around that point I felt a shift myself in GPT4:s ability to program; where it before found clever solutions to difficult problems, it now often struggles with basics.
What are you talking about? Amazon’s digital video purchases don’t require any monthly access fee. He paid £5.99 with the idea that he’ll get to keep it indefinitely, just like a physical DVD. I don’t get why you think it is ok for a seller to revert the sale of a digital item at any time for just the purchase price + £5 but (I presume?) not other sales?
Nowhere do they use terms like “rent” or “lease”. They explicitly use terms like “buy” and it’s not until the fine print that the term license even comes up.
This! It really should be illegal to present something with the phrasing “buy” unless it is provided to you via a license that prevent it from being withdrawn. To “sell” cloud hosted media without having the licensing paperwork in place for it to be a sale is fraud.
Are you fine with me taking anything from your home as long as I pay you the purchase price + £5? Some of us assign a greater value to some of the things we own than the purchase price.
People losing media this way should sue, with the argument that it was presented to end users as a “sale”, and it is not sufficient to merely compensate someone with the purchase price to undo a sale. Companies “selling” digital products should be forced to write agreements that allow them to redistribute content indefinitely.
It’s because the licence holder of the movie decided Amazon can’t show it anymore. Perhaps they were asking Amazon to pay a high fee and it wants worth it.
I get that this is what the license holder wants. But, why can’t we just put into law that a license is not needed for a company to host, retransmit and play copyrighted media on behalf of a user once the license holder has been compensated as agreed for a sale?
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” // Carl Sagan.
There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.
A few things:
Unity is still bleeding money. They have a product that could be the basis for a reasonably profitable company, but spending billions on a microtransaction company means it is not sufficient for their current leadership. It doesn’t seem wise to build your bussniess on the product of a company whose bussniess plan you fundamentally disagree with.
It would be the best for the long term health of bussniess-to-bussnies services if we as a community manages to send the message that it doesn’t matter what any contract says - just trying to introduce retroactive fees is unforgivable and a death sentence to the company that tries it.
I understand LLaMA and some other models come with instructions that say that they cannot be used commercially. But, unless the creators can show that you have formally accepted a license agreement to that effect, on what legal grounds can that be enforceable?
If we look at the direction US law is moving, it seems the current legal theory is that AI generated works fall in the public domain. That means restricting their use commercially should be impossible regardless of other circumstances - public domain means that anyone can use them for anything. (But it also means that your commercial use isn’t protected from others likewise using the exact same output).
If we instead look at what possible legal grounds restrictions on the output of these models could be based on if you didn’t agree to a license agreement to access the model. Copyright don’t restrict use, it restricts redistribution. The creators of LLMs cannot reasonably take the position that output created from their models is a derivative work of the model, when their model itself is created from copyrighted works, many of which they have no right to redistribute. The whole basis of LLMs rest on that “training data” -> “model” produces a model that isn’t encumbered by the copyright of the training data. How can one take that position and simultaneously belive “model” -> “inferred output” produces copyright encumbered output? That would be a fundamentally inconsistent view.
(Note: the above is not legal advice, only free-form discussion.)
Doesn’t North Koreans fighting in Ukraine mean that North Korea now is at war with Ukraine? Wouldn’t that legitimize a Ukrainian invasion of North Korea? Could we ship some Ukrainians to North Korea and have them do a lot of damage there; including offer asylums to anyone who wants to get out?