In my experience taking a term that is widely used and attempting to give it a more specific meaning doesn't end well. If people are using "method" interchangeably with "associated function" right now it will be an endless battle of trying to make people stop using the term "sloppily" when it isn't sloppy it was just the original meaning.
A lot of cultures ended up with effective currencies. Whether that was grains of rice or chickens there ended up a small number of items that had a well understood value and ended up being the default item of trade, not because the receiver needed those items but because they were known to be easily exchanged with others.
There is no concrete difference between the two options. But in general they will be similar. I think you are talking about these options:
struct Person;
struct Skill;
struct PersonSkills {
person: PersonId,
skill: SkillId,
}
vs
struct Person {
skills: SkillId[],
}
struct Skill;
The main difference that I see is that there is a natural place to put data about this relationship with the "join table".
struct PersonSkills {
person: PersonId,
skill: SkillId,
acquired: Timestamp,
experience: Duration,
}
You can still do this at in the second one, but you notice that you are basically heading towards an interleaved join table.
struct PersonSkills {
skill: SkillId,
acquired: Timestamp,
experience: Duration,
}
struct Person {
skills: PersonSkills[],
}
There are other less abstract concerns. Such as performance (are you always loading the list of skills, what if it is long) or correctness (if you delete a Person do you want to delete these relationships, it comes "for free" if they are stored on the Person) But which is better will depend on your use case.
Yup. I would try to stop using it if at all possible. As soon as you can, dump a full disk image to some other storage. Tools like ddrescue can be useful as they will try to re-read failed sectors to get a more complete image.
Once you have the data (or at least as much is available) to a reliable medium then you can start sorting through it and discarding or saving individual bits.
They are effectively the same. I don't have enough experience to say which is better for which use cases. The list of supported sites is a bit different. Hopefully someone with more experience can give more concrete differences.
Prices won't change overnight, even a year is pretty fast. These are large assets and most sellers would rather wait a bit than risk selling in a short stall. Some sellers are also very emotional and think they know what it is worth.
But if the supply is increasing the prices should start to drop.
Are you a lawyer?
I am not. Are you?
Including a link to a Creative Commons license in a comment footer will not do that.
It is when you give it a different name which doesn't reflect the actual behaviour of the license.
Ok. So you should probably frame your license like that. Instead of saying "Anti Commercial-AI license" say "Pro Non-commercial-AI license".
I think that is the better case. That is just NPM aggregating the metadata. There are lots of packages that print their own ad.
No, it is more. You aren't restricting anything, it is just a superset of uses. If you want to explicitly license your comments for wider use that is fine, but don't misrepresent it as "Anti Commercial-AI". Just frame it as licensed for non-commercial use.
Pasting a copypasta is probably actually copyright infringement. Same with memes.
The thing about copyright is that it really only matters if you choose to enforce your protection. Presumably the owners of the copypasta don't care enough and the owners of the memes think it brings more popularity to the movie than any licensing costs they could possibly gain from selling the stills.
(Some memes may be considered transformative enough to be fair use, but some of them almost certainly are not.)
Video game streaming is a clear example of this. Almost certainly live-streaming or doing full gameplay videos are infringing the game owner's copyright. The work is often commercial, is often a replacement for the original (at least for some people) and very rarely transformative. But most game publishers think that it is worth it for the advertising. So they don't enforce their copyright. Many publishers will explicitly grant licenses for streaming their games. A few publishers will enforce their copyright and take down videos, they are likely well within their rights.
Tom Scott has a fairly good overview of basic copyright knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
I don't know if I would say the internet is opposed to copyright. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of not caring. If the average internet commenter posts a meme it is of such minuscule cost to the owner of that work that it doesn't make sense to go after them. So it sort of just happens. This makes people think that it is allowed, even if it probably isn't. Most people would probably also agree that this is morally ok. But I don't think that means that they are against copyright in general. I think if you asked most people. "Should I be allowed to download a CGP Grey video and reupload it for my own profit" they would say no. Probably similar for "Should I be allowed to sell cracked copies of Celeste for half price".
I find rail more comfortable than bus and it is cheaper to run at high frequency. The main downside is flexibility (you basically need to close the route to fix the tracks, or if something is blocking them) but overall I find it much better, especially with grade separation.