quarterdime

Interesting. Two key quotes:

> It is unclear if the Intercept ruling will embolden other publications to consider DMCA litigation; few publications have followed in their footsteps so far. As time goes on, there is concern that new suits against OpenAI would be vulnerable to statute of limitations restrictions, particularly if news publishers want to cite the training data sets underlying ChatGPT. But the ruling is one signal that Loevy & Loevy is narrowing in on a specific DMCA claim that can actually stand up in court.

> Like The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet are asking for $2,500 in damages for each instance that OpenAI allegedly removed DMCA-protected information in its training data sets. If damages are calculated based on each individual article allegedly used to train ChatGPT, it could quickly balloon to tens of thousands of violations.

Tens of thousands of violations at $2500 each would amount to tens of millions of dollars in damages. I am not familiar with this field, does anyone have a sense of whether the total cost of retraining (without these alleged DMCA violations) might compare to these damages?

If you are using qubes, you are likely using kicksecure. Whonix (used by many qubes users) is based on kicksecure.

I have heard this argument before, and it made sense to me until I became a patient. First of all, if the 3rd party (insurance company) was so incentivized to guard against fraud, why would they repeatedly lose documents that had been submitted to them?

> For starters, she said bluntly, “we know everything is going to get denied.” It’s almost a given, she said, that the insurer will lose the first batch of records. “We often have to send records two or three times before they finally admit they actually received them. … They play all of these kinds of delaying games.”

Insurance companies costs come less from the first $10k of patients' spending, and much more from the next $10M. Very few, very expensive patients make up the bulk of the cost. This article (and other great Pro Publica reporting) demonstrates some of the ways that insurance companies cut these costs--ultimately by refusing to pay (or delaying) for necessary care.

Great videos. First video, about 22:50: "and we had a new challenge, OK? For the last three or four years our, our distribution has run sold out. So anytime we go and get a sale and we go and create inventory, we know it's going to be bought."

Meanwhile, from the DOJ release: "According to evidence presented at trial, Shah, Agarwal, and Purdy sold advertising inventory the company did not have to Outcome’s clients, then under-delivered on its advertising campaigns. Despite these under-deliveries, the company still invoiced its clients as if it had delivered in full."

Wow.

I am glad you are still here, yet sorry to hear of that experience. Thanks for sharing.

>Couldn’t figure out how to fight them at the time, since most of my reasoning was gone.

Very similar to my experience too. Very few people are best prepared to fight a bureaucracy while dealing with a health issue that racks up millions.

This story sounds all too familiar to me. I have been denied coverage and subsequently saddled with debt. I know others who have experienced similar. I wonder how widespread this is.

Reading about insurance company's internal process is deeply upsetting. It is like a kangaroo court, where the denial of benefits is predetermined. Documentation to support this conclusion is fabricated. Documentation that does not support the conclusion is buried.

Your suggestion of staying home if sick is one I agree with. Unfortunately I cannot make others do this. In fact, where I live in the USA I come across people who are visibly/audibly ill in my daily life: air travel, public transport, grocery store, and so on. I would prefer if these people stayed home, but can I make them? I can wear a mask, and I do (typically N95 in public places). If others think I look crazy, that is a small price to pay to avoid a few weeks of being sick or infecting someone else. Particularly my vulnerable family members.

In my own working experience and speaking with others, this is the part of "quiet quitting" that is too often missed. This is 100% about the question "does extra professional effort on my part, to the point of sacrifices in my personal life, lead to any benefit or reward?"

In game theory terms, if we have a system that increasingly disincentivizes cooperation and incentivizes defection, it should surprise no one to see less cooperation.

Is your brother still in the industry? If so, what are his thoughts about the current working conditions and the possible strike beginning Friday?

> What is the second person supposed to do - get out and push?

Despite the relatively low rolling resistance, even a single rail car is too heavy for a human to push.

I am not a railroad worker so I may have this wrong. But there are a number of reasons that a second (or third) person is a big help from a practical or safety standpoint.

For example, if you are picking up a car (adding it to the train), the engineer will drive the locomotive forward/back while in radio contact with a person on the ground. The person on the ground will confirm the couplings closed properly, and connect air lines for brake system. Doing this with two or three people over the radio is faster, easier, and probably safer. I think one of the safety concerns here is a coupling that has closed incompletely or improperly: if it lets go as the train climbs a grade, you can have a loose car (or a string of cars) on the track. If I understand correctly, you want to watch the coupling "catch" as the train inches forward. Maybe there is a sensor-based solution, but I am not sure.

Another advantage for a second (or third) crew member is safety. If there is a derailment and a solo crew, that person stays with the locomotive and reports the accident. Someone has to drive to the scene (in most cases by road). This adds a lot of time. In the event of a derailment, this time is a big safety concern. A lot of hazmat (chlorine, ammonia, chemicals, hydrocarbons) are shipped by rail.

I am sure there is quality of life as well. Being alone is far more difficult psychologically.

In the end, we can say "US freight should have single person crews" all we want, but good luck finding a labor force willing to do it. The rail industry is struggling to recruit and retain workers. Switching to single person crews would not help if half of the workers quit.