We already see that the US needed to pay El Salvador to accept its prisoners, and the UK pay Rwanda to take asylum seekers. It's hard to think of a country which will accept people the US considers to be freeloaders, except by taking considerable compensation .. or by threat of military force, which is also expensive.
My friend, this is America. We already have so much experience relocating displaced undesirable native peoples into marginal lands where they can cosplay independence and autonomy. Oklahoma is pretty much taken, but I think we can spare Arkansas, Kentucky, and a few others.
I know a lot of people from high school for whom this would be a big step up in life actually.
OK, what sort of systemic change you propose? Note that bans on anything digital are really hard to enforce without giving law enforcement draconian powers.
Yes, that's the meme. "We should improve society somewhat" doesn't mean the peasant has actionable proposals, only pointing out there's a problem.
My comment was instead highlighting how your analogy to the "car problem" might be right, in that where we see big shifts to reduce the car problem, like in Paris, it comes from systemic changes from a car-centric form to a diverse transit form, rather than an individual choice model.
My go-to these days is to heavily tax the rich, place a staggering tax on the the superrich, introduce meaningful UBI, put strict controls on housing rentals, etc.
Why waste time using ChatGPT to write work email slop when you don't need to work?
I presume the student is using ChatGPT for assignments in order to get the credentials (a degree) needed for a job - while companies off-load their training costs onto young people, who are then encourage to go into debt, resulting in a mild form of debt bondage.
Reduce the need for a job, so the students who go to college are more likely to be those who want the personal education, rather than credentialism.
But hey, I'm just a peasant programmer saying there are flaws, and we should do something about it. Talk to an actual expert, not me.
Those experts (I hear them on podcasts) will also say things like having strong consumer protection laws so people aren't forced to deal with AI (and human!) sludge.
> because how could a fact checker have an agenda? It's not possible, they're just checking facts!
Of course a fact checker has an agenda. How else do they decide which fact checking to prioritize? It's not like a single person or organization has the ability to fact check everything about every topic.
A fact checking group with an emphasis on correcting mistakes about Catholic teachings is very unlikely to provide fact checking about water rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo nor fact checking statements about British tank production during the Second World War.
> Shouldn't there be just one, holding all the truth?
I can't make sense of that argument. Which organization could that even be?
> To me, it was just journalism in disguise
It can also be journalism. Newspapers, magazines, and even podcasts can have staff fact checkers. The origin story for The New Yorker's famous fact checkers was to avoid libel after printing a false story about Edna St. Vincent Millay.
That is, the clear agenda of the New Yorker's fact checkers is to minimize lawsuits and enhance the reputation of the magazine among its current and future subscribers.
I therefore see no problem in fact checkers having an agenda as I can't make sense of how it would be otherwise.
When someone pulls out the old chestnut "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result", I point to the flight crew of Speedbird 9, repeatedly trying to restart the engines of the 747, as an example of very sane behavior.
"We are currently fighting against a DDoS attack against our service and our status page. We are analyzing network traffic with the help of our ISP at the moment and let you know once we have updates to share."
> At around 06:00 UTC on January 10th [2024], a layer 3 distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack began to target SourceHut’s PHL infrastructure. We routinely deal with and mitigate application layer (layer 7) DDoS attacks, however, a layer 3 attack takes place at a lower level and is not within our ability to mitigate without the assistance of our network provider.
Codeberg has been under DDOS attacks for most of 2025, someone out there has it in for them and has been attacking relentlessly. The volunteer team has been very transparent posting about in social media and their blogs.
I think that even with someone having it out for them, the unfortunate reality of running a web service in 2025 is you have to be prepared to handle this and going down for hours at a time isn’t handling it.
It is. A common argument against using "intellectual property" is how beliefs about tangible property - land and objects - shouldn't be applied to copyright, patent, etc., so using the term is an implicit acceptance of a false narrative.
My assertion is much weaker and therefore much easier to defend — even if you agree with copyright, patents, trademarks, and so on, it is not to out advantage as individuals to support grouping them into one umbrella term as it muddies the waters.
Trademark and service marks are a whole different ball game from copyright. To group them together confuses everyone and is therefore only beneficial for those who wish to fish in troubled waters.
"Quite often" = actually quite rare. I think you greatly underestimate the number of new novels published each year.
Your first two examples would have been covered under a 14+14 copyright period.
I do not think a 28-year copyright period would have kept Atwood from writing The Handmaiden's Tale, do you? She was a millionaire by the time that copyright expired.
I don't think looking at peak sales for outlying cases should affect copyright limits. When were peak sales for Shakespeare's Hamlet? Darwin's On the Origin of Species? Marx's Das Kapital?
The justification for US copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The problem you point out is that right can be transferred to publishers and others. Note that since 1978 it's possible for an author to terminate that transfer after 35 years, which is well after those peaks you mentioned.
What you've not mentioned is the ability for other authors to build on existing ideas. Disney famously profited by re-telling public domain stories, but will come down on you if you re-tell their stories. Speaking of fantasy, you can now write stories which take place in Oz, but make sure it doesn't have ruby slippers as that's a detail from the movie, which is still under copyright.
We already see that the US needed to pay El Salvador to accept its prisoners, and the UK pay Rwanda to take asylum seekers. It's hard to think of a country which will accept people the US considers to be freeloaders, except by taking considerable compensation .. or by threat of military force, which is also expensive.
If you want a dystopian future, just kill them.
reply