shkkmo

> this utilizes moving a large amount of air in the direction opposite to the road.

False.

The air from the fans is ejected out of rear of the vehicle, not the top. The kinetic energy of that air is neglible at best. The vehicle uses retractible fairings to create a partial seal and the fans create a low pressure zone inside the zone that holds the vehicle to road.

The cold gas thrusters are a completely different system that expels high pressurized air from canisters in the vehicle.

> One way out could be to tax the value gain at the time of sale, or when the house gets rented out, thus no longer being “owner occupied”.

Forcing renters and buyers to pay for the local services instead of property owners seems extremely unfair.

> Any increase in housing value (and thus property taxes) is mostly an increase in the cost of living.

So? If the property values go up then cost of living is going up for renters too. Why should property owners be shielded from this by imposing local service costs on renters who generally have even lower incomes than owners.

> Tor shouldn't choose sides in political debates.

> Did all Tor developers, users and exit-node administrators get a vote in this? Or is it a small minority who decides this course?

This is addressed in the announcement.

> Free speech also includes speech you may not agree with and just because you accept someone's (or some company's) donations doesn't mean you're "associated" with them.

Tor didn't stop taking the donations nor did they stop cooperating with Mullvad on development.

What they did is pause "joint promotional activity" and review the language of what they had published about Mullvad to avoid implying an endorsement or alignment of values.

What problem do you have with that? This seems like precisely the avoidance of side taking that you are advocating.

> Also because ideally running a supermarket should give you more money even in a deflationary world.

Running a super market involves owning physical goods for some period of time. With deflation, the price you can sell those goods for drops while you are holding them. In fact most economic activity involves paying for inputs (labor, materials, etc) and then later getting paid for your outputs. Deflation directly impacts profitability and can cause losses.

Since deflation causes demand to drop as economic actors wisely choose to start hoarding currency and buying less, this causes a feedback loop where deflation can spiral.

Similarly, inflation causes demand to increase since holding currency is unwise and it is better to spend or invest that currency than hold onto it.

These two patterns mean that the neutral state (no inflation or deflation) is unstable as any deviation above or below starts a feedback loop until things fall apart. This is the boom and bust economic cycle that modern monetary management is supposed to ameliorate.

Given that you want economic growth, the best solution is to try to stabilize around a small fixed amount of inflation. Arguing for the end of inflation is arguing for the end of economic growth.

> If victims of traffic were made whole then car insurance would be staggeringly expensive and either (1) only extremely rich people would afford to drive or (2) a ton of un-insured drivers would be out on the roads.

This seems like kinda of am extreme prediction. The EU sets much, much higher liability limits and neither (1) nor (2) is true. A gradual roll out would give time for driving habbits and infrastructure to absorb the changes.

> we don't want to start to treat digital device and software as living beings.

Right, because then we have to decide at what point our use of AI becomes slavery.

I'm polite in repose to being repeatedly called names and this is your response?

If you think my behavior here was truly ban worthy than do it because I don't see anything in the I would change except for engaging at all

> What kind of bullshit argument is this? Really? Works created using illegally obtained copyrighted material are themselves considered to be infringing as well.

That isn't true.

The copyright to derivative works is owned by the copyright holder of the original work. However using illegaly obtained copies to create a fair use transformative work does not taint your copyright of that work.

> Even if not, you agree that they infringed on copyright of something close to all copyrighted works on the internet and this sounds fine to you?

I agree that they violated copyright when they torrented books and scholarly arguments. I don't think that counts at "close to all copyrighted works on the Internet".

> The consequences and fines from that would kill any company if they actually had to face them.

I don't actually agree that copyright that causes no harm should be met with such steep penalties. I didn't agree when it was being done by the RIAA and even though I don't like facebook, I don't like it here either.

[flagged]

> You seem set on conflating "training" an LLM with "learning" by a human.

"Learning" is an established word for this, happy to stick with "training" if that helps your comprehension.

> LLMs don't "learn" but they _do_ in some cases, faithfully regurgitate what they have been trained on.

> Legally, we call that "making a copy."

Yes, when you use a LLM to make a copy .. that is making a copy.

When you train a LLM... That isn't making a copy, that is training. No copy is created until output is generated that contains a copy.

> The problem is that it's not the user of the LLM doing the reproduction, the LLM provider is.

I don't think this is legally true. The law isn't fully settled here, but things seem to be moving towards the LLM user being the holder of the copyright of any work produced by that user prompting the LLM. It seems like this would also place the enfringement onus on the user, not the provider.

> If someone hires me to write some code, and I give them GPLed code (without telling them it is GPLed), I'm the one who broke the license, not them.

If you produce code using a LLM, you (probably) own the copyright. If that code is already GPL'd, you would be the one engaged in enfringement.