tanewishly

Errr... that word implies some type of non-deterministic effect. Like using a randomizer without specifying the seed (ie. sampling from a distribution). I mean, stuff like NFAs (non-deterministic finite automata) isn't magic.

> A lot of these "security bugs" are not really "security bugs" in the first place. Denial of service ...

Ackshually...

Security is typically(*) classified as CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Denial of Service is an attack against Availability... so yeah, that kind of is inherently a security bug.

You're going to need a bigger boat.

That was my takeaway as well. The weird thing is: since it's someone else doing the initial publication, their omission of copyright credits is costing the artist their copyright. That's... unexpected. I don't know how things worked back then in book art, but if the artist wasn't contracted as work-for-hire, protecting their copyright ought to become the burden of those who actually made the art public. I don't know if this argument was put forth in appeals, but ruling+motivation on this point from the appeals committees are absent from the story.

Sounds like you could accidentally make someone else's art public domain by forgetting to include them on the copyright page...

edit well, perhaps that's part of the reason the copyright laws were updated.

I can see that working in a 1-v-1 game, but how does that work in a last-one-standing game? Each game would have 1 winner and N-1 players who lost.

My point was that there is no test (or classifier) that can always guarantee that one definition of fairness by itself, irrespective of the base rate. If the classifier acts the same independent of base rate, there are always base rates (ie occurrence rates in the rates population) for which the classifier will fail the given definition.

That illustrates that the given definition cannot hold universally, irrespective of what classifier you dream up. Unless your classifier is not independent from the base rate - that is, a classifier that gets more lenient if there's more fraud in the group. That seems undesirable when considering fairness as a goal.

The thing is: I'm not looking for an unremarkable painting. I sincerely am not interested in one. So spending my money that way would be counterproductive.

Related: if you feel this style of painting is so unremarkable, why are you advocating for others to support knock-offs? To use an analogy: I have zero interest in buying a Louis Vuitton handbag - but my interest in buying one of the far cheaper knockoffs you can get at touristy places from shady peddlers is a lot lower than that.

Perhaps, but unless one of them is Walt Disney, I've never heard of them - therefore their fame does not impact my valuation of their work. I can see myself spend 50 bucks on a (to me) unknown piece of art because it is pretty. Spending more would require an additional connection - fame of artist, depicts something dear to me, seems like a good investment, etc. etc... only being pretty isn't enough.

No, because he painted something that I find pleasant to look at and consider it worth money. The price is higher because of the artist's fame, that much is true - but that is always the case with art.

I mean, you're basically arguing about taste... Bob Ross was a lot more famous than most other artists, not in the least because many people liked what he produced.

Bob Ross was known in my country (in Europe) due to his show at the time. Not quite universally, but probably closer to a household name than any other living painter was at the time. Dunno how it was in other countries in Europe, but still. The man was relatively well known for paintings, paintings that were regarded well by the general audience (experts: dunno).

So while maybe he couldn't be selling his paintings for 1000s to the decently-off, there clearly was ample demand. If he truly wanted to make a boatload, he easily could have.

Related: the treasure trove could easily be sold 1 painting at a time. Just don't make it regular - not once a year, but sometimes 2 in 2 months, and then 5 years nothing. That really wouldn't spurs the value that much, if at all.

> 2. Two people who are identical except for their nationality face the same probability of a false positive.

That seems to fall afoul of the Base Rate Fallacy. Eg, consider 2 groups of 10,000 people and testing on A vs B. First group has 9,999 A and 1 B, second has 1 A and 9,999 B. Unless you make your test blatantly ineffective, you're going to have different false positive rates -- irrespectiveof the test's performance.

Where I currently live, terminally ill nearing their end often fall in a pattern of eating and drinking less and less, to the point of having nothing (not even water). This process of dying takes 1-2 weeks(!). Longer if some liquid is still imbibed.

This is a common ending of a terminally ill process and apparently seen as humane. Though I think if anyone treated their dog like that, we'd report them for animal abuse.

I don't have good answers to most questions surrounding this topic. But I'd like to get to a point where people are treated as humanely as their pets in their final period. And I can't even tell you the current practice isn't, just that it does not at all feel that way to me.

Well, to be frank, we currently have such a ship, but we're doing quite a lot to disrupt its capability of sustaining human life.

Of course, even if we stopped doing that, we'd need to figure out how to visit another place if our ship is passing close by. That also seems to pose a problem: both Voyagers are barely out of the exhaust fumes of our ship's motor, and getting so far took ~40 years.

We're already on that starship. Our engine is about 8 lightminutes away. All we need is to figure out how to steer this thing - and how to not wreck it while en route.