Zetta

I understand that's how you think of it, but I'm talking about the technology itself. There is absolutely no copy of the original work, in the sense of ones and zeros.

The image generation model itself does not contain any data at all that is any of the work it was trained on, so the output of the model can't be considered copyrighted work.

Yes, you can train models to copy artists' styles or work, but it's not like tracing the image at all. Your comparison is completely wrong. It is a completely unique image that is generated off of the model itself, because the model itself does not contain any of the original work.

Is it acceptable to build a product which contains the copyrighted works of others without their permission? Is it different if the works contained in the product are programmatically transformed prior to distribution?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of how image generation models and training them works is that the end product, in fact, does not contain any copyrighted material or any transformation of that copyrighted material. The training process refines a set of numbers in the model, But those numbers can't really be considered a transformation of the input.

To preface what I'm about to say, LLMs and image models are absolutely not intelligent, and it's fucking stupid that they're called AI at all. However, if you look at somebody's art and learn from it, you don't contain a copyrighted piece of their work in your head or a transformation of that copyrighted work. You've just refined your internal computers knowledge and understanding of the work, I believe the way image models are trained could be compared to that.

I only park backwards at work and it's because I sleep in my car on my breaks, I get more shade on the front side of my car from the tree I park under if I park backwards. Also it is nice saving the ~10 seconds backing out to leave when I really wanna start getting home even though that time saving in practice is miniscule.

Or, it's the same, we're living and shit sucks.

Lmao this hits home, my caffeine intake has slowly been creeping up on me cause of my job and commute, I have like five or so double shot Americanos a day now.

Which still isn't all that bad, like 650mg a day of caffeine. Above the FDA rec limit but lower than a lot of these people I see sucking down bangs all day

I actually think this is a good public health move, I would want my politicians pushing this.

It will accomplish informing people that they are indeed being exposed to sound loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. I think a surprising amount of people don't quite grasp that reality.

Also you can get the best noise reduction rating (33dB) earplugs for well under a dollar, I last ordered 25 pairs of disposable foam plugs for ~$0.50 a pair at $13 total. So while it's totally expected for some venues to be scummy and still offer shitty plugs, I'm hopeful that the majority of them will take the over 100% profit on the $1 price or under.

I'm hourly and make a good living wage, are you implying that hourly means you don't work full time or should be entitled to a livable wage?

You keep showing how you don't know anything about this, there are no subsidies on these items. Starlink is owned by SpaceX, so it is essentially free to launch besides the fuel it costs to launch. They are going to spend the money on operations, no matter what. If you want to call that a subsidy fine, but it's a subsidy that's never going away.

Secondly, prices have not gone up for the most popular plan that normal folks have. Prices were only raised for customers that do not have a fixed location, such as people who use their dish on a boat or RV.

Third, It's funny how confident you are when the fact is that this is such a good business model that other companies are desperately trying to fill the space as competitors.

Amazon's Kupier just starter launching their network, and have significantly greater launch costs than starlink because they do not own the launch vehicles, still Kupier will print money for Amazon in 10 years. You are talking out of your ass.

I see you responding to many of my comments, it shows you are unreasonably upset about something that shouldn't upset you. Yes Elon musk is a horrible person that will hopefully die soon, doesn't change the fact SpaceX and Starlink are both incredibly successful and will continue to be in the future.

Also last I read the cost to manufacture a terminal was now lower than the cost they sell them at, and that will continue to drop as production scales up (because there is significant demand despite what you may believe)

I do not like Elon musk

I won't debate more on the finances because, like you said, they're a private company and we can't know for sure. However, reliable public estimates show starlink is profitable already or will be very soon.

Falcon Heavy is supposed to be cheaper per ton, yet somehow is almost never used for Starlink or anything else

Starlink already about maxes out the fairing capacity of the Falcon Rockets, so allowing more weight doesn't do much besides increase cost. Same with other companies buying launch services from SpaceX. Usually they don't need the extra capacity or margins heavy offers, although I wish me got more launches, they are always a treat to watch.

Starship isn't even projected to be cheaper than Falcon 9

Maybe not, but that wasn't my main point. They are already spending money on Starship and that isn't going to change. It's just soon they will actually be able to use that money they're spending to make more money by launching more starlinks. With the significantly larger payload capacity, they will also be able to launch way sats per launch and also more capable sats with higher bandwidth or more onboard propellants for a longer operational life

I expect Starship will be used to launch many batches of Starlink while the vehicle is still in testing and expected to fail on occasion, If you think about it in that capacity, the launches are free since they are already going to be doing test launches.