> you need to decide which is it—delete your account when done or saved forever. Everyone yells privacy, “Account Delete” must but when it happens, you cry all over.
Requesting account deletion should delete the associated data, but a paid subscription lapsing doesn't need to.
I think the confusion is that robrain somehow understood smokel's objection as being "all-time total downloads obviously increase over time, so this is meaningless", rather than what smokel actually said which was "the number of weekly downloads has simply been increasing over time". Which is why robrain quoted LibreOffice's "This is the highest number of downloads in the first week”, to counter the idea (which nobody suggested) that the record was just about all-time cumulative downloads going up.
That's then what tempfile was questioning how it contradicted smokel's claim (because it doesn't, just an imagined claim). Your points, that if the number of weekly downloads isn't actually consistently increasing then this could still be meaningful, are valid - but irrelevant to tempfile who was wasn't arguing that this is meaningless; you should argue that to smokel instead.
> first they are mostly collecting statistics about ethnicity, not race
From the 2020 form I can see, the question is: "What is this person’s race? Mark X one or more boxes [...]"
> what is more relevant is why should a country even collect either such information?!
Having the true population (or close to it) is very useful for a lot of purposes in statistics/scientific studies - like knowing whether your sample is representative (and how much to undersample/oversample if not), or controlling for race when looking at factors correlated with it.
> Maybe you should base your sense of satisfaction on [...]
If senses like satisfaction were fully voluntarily controllable then arguably there would be no need for games in the first place. I feel there's generally more satisfaction from overcoming a well-designed concrete obstacle rather than self-hindering that accomplishes nothing in particular and that could've just been avoided. At the end of the day all challenges in games are artificial and avoidable, but some separation (like having to go into settings, enable cheats, then open dev console to enable godmode, rather than just having a godmode keybind) is good for tricking the brain.
That said, the challenge of the Portal games (outside of challenge modes) is almost entirely in the puzzles rather than fast reflexes, so I don't think a slow-mode would really take away from anything challenge-wise. I'd guess it was just a bit awkward with dialog, and simpler to design puzzles around not requiring fast reactions rather than introduce a new control. In comparison, something like yellow paint giving away the solution definitely would be detrimental, even if you could in theory ignore it.
Green Spiderman would be copying of protected elements - like Spiderman's outline. Style and general ideas are not protected by copyright. Substantial similarity comes in as a test for whether copying of those protected elements occurred, to avoid an otherwise disprovable "I didn't copy, I just drew Spiderman's exact outline by complete coincidence" defense, but is irrelevant if the what's supposedly been copied isn't protected by copyright in the first place.
The most prominent object in that scene is the low poly airship. Minecraft does not have vehicles, does not have objects with components with such a small thickness as the railings, does not have angles like the bow of the ship or the ropes.
It looks more like a Runescape asset than a Minecraft one, for example:
And you would bet your life savings that the general public, including a jury, would know that? They would look at Minecraft and say it's a clearly different game?
"Obviously the real Spiderman has an "i" and not a "y" in its spelling!!1!"
Explain that to a jury in front of a judge and Disney lawyers and see how your legal theory goes over...
Do you think that the way a jury trial works is that they call the jury into the room, show them a few screenshots, and then immediately say "right, time to give your verdict!"?
If this were ever to go to a jury trial, both sides would get to present their evidence, which includes explanations of how Luanti is different from Minecraft.
If you were correct, then basically every accusation of substantial similarity would be upheld in court because apparently juries are morons and they don't get given the full facts.
However, you also have failed to provide any support for your assumption that this would go to a jury trial; the article doesn't mention any kind of trial. DMCA notices are adjudicated by the platform owner, with very little transparency, and certainly no jury of peers. If it doesn't get resolved by the counter-notice, then maybe Luanti will sue (Microsoft? Google? Tracer.AI? all of the above? who knows!), and maybe it would go before a jury. But given how lawsuits in the US go these days, that's pretty unlikely. Odds are if there is a lawsuit, it will be settled before a jury ever gets selected.
Even then, it doesn't appear to show anything actually copied from Minecraft that would fall under copyright protection - the assets appear to be original.
Why it was announced specifically on a sticker (rather than on the box like the other games) is the core of the question - the headline no longer really works without it. I'd go with one of:
> Why did Microsoft Entertainment Pack have a sticker announcing it had Tetris?
> Why did Microsoft Entertainment Pack announce that it had Tetris on a sticker?
> Why the Microsoft Entertainment Pack had a sticker announcing it had Tetris
> Local models are never going to be as powerful. I think this point should be obvious: all of the current frontier models (closed and open-weights) are far too big to run on anything but a full GPU cluster in a datacenter
Diminishing returns with respect to scale (a 10X larger model is typically not 10X better at any given task) has so far meant that, even when datacenter compute grows faster than individual compute, the gap in quality between hosted and local models has generally shrunk. There are still plenty of tasks where that extra gain in quality is noticeable, but I feel there are also an increasing number of "saturated" tasks where it really doesn't matter.
Which puts more focus on other factors. Local models are private, low-latency, work offline, and can be tinkered with to your liking - like changing the system prompt to avoid refusals. I would not trust a hosted model to classify my documents, for example.
> You can turn off some annoying parts of the game [...] cool that everyone can have the amount of difficulty/frustration they desire
Depends on the type of game, but I'd generally prefer those decisions be made by the game designer. If there's frustration I want it to feel like overcoming a concrete obstacle, rather than it being self-hindering that accomplishes nothing and that I could've just avoided.
> You have no way to provide a concrete reason to the user at that point.
You should just be able to look at the user's message and tell them why it's against your policy, else reverse the decision if you see no violation.
If a user is curious specifically about how the model made its decision, and you want to reveal detail at that level, it's an open-weights model so interpretability techniques should work ("biggest impact on score came when focusing on this word in your message and this part of the policy").
Einstein - definitive end of XIX ilusion and way of thinking that "We know everything. We are the lords of things, we own all of it! And other peoples too! We can engineer societes as we like it!". With strict oposition to old and humbler "God" or natural ways. With aggresive "we" that do not pay attention to rights of other we's.
And, IMO, Einstein, Godel and more discoveries should be reason to not continue communism stupidity. Especially to not continue - after year 1905 - social engineering plans of "world-wide GENOCIDE until everybody is good citizen".
Of course I'm talking about best-wanting-for-humans but still naive communism and not about a way to destabilize other countries by any means necessary. Such move did almost insta-karma effect on Germany: sponsoring commies in Russia resulted in nazi being sponsored in Germany...
Don't think someone want to deny societes, philosophers and politicians are drived by overall science view on reality. And what else could drive atheistic minds ? Not judging here, logic is everyones duty.
Also my "too bad politicians..." was obviously expression of a wish. Not only science influents politicians. But discovered facts (counterarguments in this case) about reality could be taken for consideration, right ?
Requesting account deletion should delete the associated data, but a paid subscription lapsing doesn't need to.
reply