FatCrab

I think this is a gross oversimplification of the issues, but that's a big part of the problem. Currently, the problems facing both the DNC and the country are very complex and one very large and diverse side has to present ultimate complex solutions to complex problems to an electorate that collectively can barely tie its shoes, and the other just handwaves over this complexity, others a whole punch of folks, and says they'll "fix" it by pushing the bad mean "others" out.

Government actually DID work for a huge swathe of people in subtle, often taken for granted ways. It had vast room for improvement, but nevertheless was better than the alternative of simply not existing. The VA is a good example of this. But when you try to explain that to folks, they just glaze over. Another example is I've had discussions with multiple people now who were convinced that Harris just "never even had any policy" despite this being objectively untrue and very easily refuted.

This is all to say, no, "people" don't know or see shit. The average voters is wildly uninformed, uninformable, and cannot engage in anything beyond magical thinking. Long term solution is to make politics at the individual level more engaging with their day to day and increase general competence and access to true information. No idea what the short term solution is--as the saying goes, you can't use reason to convince someone out of a stupid fucking opinion.

Yea, this is what gets me and what news media needs to actually talk about. The texts are a security leak and sign of unfathomable idiocy and incompetence, sure, but there are missiles literally designed to target and blender people in an area the size of a car and nowhere else. They deliberately did this in the most irresponsible, collaterally devastating way possible. These people carefree murdered a bunch of children and families just trying to survive. Every single participant of that chat should be swaying in the breeze under a highway overpass right now.

People who are arrested are either charged with a crime or are presenting an immediate and reasonable threat. None of these are the case here. This was absolutely a violation of her due process. Thats without even getting to the issue of her visa revocation.

And if the rest of your community was in favor, you would accept that this is how the community has decided to do it and, ignoring all else, it is not an unreasonable, even if not preferable to you personally, system?

Interesting. So you might have some sort of adjudication function, and then a person advocating on behalf, and also a person advocating in opposition of the, let's just call them "defending person," and maybe you try to in that way recognize and account for the particularities of each individual's circumstances and the thing that they're accused of?

I grew up in Milwaukee before moving to Boston. No, Boston is not even remotely the most racist city in America.

Yea, she's just a comms person with no actual competencies or practical function. That said, her office number is public info on CBP's site.

Seems like the CBP staff involved in this very clearly illegal deportation should be named and shamed. Boston is not the city to be pulling this shit in.

I wonder if part of this is because, especially if you living memory of the preceding monarchical period, presumably the last authoritarian was the one who opened up government to democratic practices, meaning they very well might have been atypically benevolent. That said, this could be completely nonsense. Literally just an avoiding-work-thought.

Greenland is one of the only (the only?) largely indigenous governed country (ish) in the world and one of its official languages alongside Danish is Greenlandic, an inuit language. So, yea, for some shitty old white American dude to continue to demand annexing this country is some fucking wild bullshit.

Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn't mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected--it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it's effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.

The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.

Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).