Persona 5's combat is really good, although I feel like it's less fun against bosses where you're not constantly getting weak point resets.
The Xenoblade games have fantastic combat, I'd probably rank them XBC2(late game)>Torna>XBC3>XBX>XBC2(early game)>XBC1
Yeah, I'm fine with it.
Slice & Dice is 60-100MB (depending on what version you get), and I've been playing it for hours a week for 3 years now.
I linked the itch.io page, but It's also on play store/app store/steam for cheaper.
True, DCC is fantastic. Guess it slipped my mind because it's been awhile.
Mother of Learning is another high recommendation, but I'd definitely rank it as a masterpiece (although the audiobook can be rough with some of the female voices).
A lot of password managers support 2fa now. I use Enpass because I got a lifetime license a long time ago (it's also available to people with Google Play pass), but I know some other popular options have it too.
I've been reading some litrpg-genre books, and a lot of the better books in that genre are extremely enjoyable despite obvious literary flaws.
Some top recommendations are He Who Fights with Monsters and Defiance of the Fall.
That's covered by section 107 of the US copyright law, and is actually fine and protected as free use in most cases. As long as the work isn't a direct copy and instead changes the result to be something different.
All parody type music is protected in this way, whether it's new lyrics to a song, or even something less "creative" like performing the lyrics of song A to the melody and style of song B.
I think a fairer comparison in that case would be the difficulty of building a camera vs the difficulty of building and programming an AI capable computer.
That doesn't really make sense either way though, no one is building their camera/computer from raw materials and then arguing that gives them better intellectual rights.
If you snap a photo of something, you own the photo (at least in the US).
There's a solid argument that someone doing complex AI image generation has done way more to create the final product than someone snapping a quick pic with their phone.
That's a step in the right direction, but I think intel should have offered a warranty extension from the moment they confirmed the issue. At this point it feels more like they're trying to do the bare minimum to weather this.
There's nothing stopping you from going to youtube, listening to a bunch of hit country songs there, and using that inspiration to write a "hit country song about getting your balls caught in a screen door". That music was free to access, and your ability to create derivative works is fully protected by copyright law.
So if that's what the AI is doing, then it would be fully legal if it was a person. The question courts are trying to figure out is if AI should be treated like people when it comes to "learning" and creating derivative works.
I think there are good arguments to both sides of that issue. The big advantage of ruling against AI having those rights is that it means that record labels and other rights holders can get compensation for their content being used. The main disadvantage is that high cost barriers to training material will kill off open-source and small company AI, guaranteeing that generative AI is fully controlled by tech giant companies like Google, Microsoft, and Adobe.
I think the best legal outcome is one that attempts to protect both: companies and individuals below a certain revenue threshold (or other scale metrics) can freely train on the open web, but are required to track what was used for training. As they grow, there will be different tiers where they're required to start paying for the content their model was trained on. Obviously this solution needs a lot of work before being a viable option, but I think something similar to this is the best way to both have competition in the AI space and make sure people get compensated.
It depends on the state, my state has almost no knife laws, but in New York (for example) nearly all folding knives are technically considered illegal gravity knives. Basically if you open a knife 99% of the way, and are able to flick it the remaining 1% open it's considered an illegal gravity knife.
It's pretty dumb.