That's a stopgap measure. The root problem is the electorate and I'm really not sure how to fix that.
Perhaps the best way to "Trump proof" the transatlantic relationship is to accept that the transatlantic relationship is not an immutable fact of nature and be ready for it to maybe fall apart someday.
It could become a bit more reasonable when you consider that most of that gear is probably reusable, so if she expects to do day trips to the beach frequently the $800 gets amortized.
In this case, though, I wouldn't assume any forward planning like that was factored in to this.
I could see it being useful for keeping the sun off, serving as a refuge from insects (depending on the local biome), perhaps serving as a changing room for privacy. But yeah, it should hardly be necessary. Just another frivolous expenditure, only do it if you can genuinely afford it.
A couple of weeks back there was an article making the rounds of the fediverse about how people with reasonably decent incomes were nevertheless living "paycheck to paycheck", and a number of examples were given in the article with their individual stories of woe about how they were baffled by how burdened with debt they were. Most of those stories, when you dug in with just a slightly critical eye instead of an automatic assumption of victimhood, revealed people making foolish choices to take on debt and support the maximally lavish lifestyle that they could manage.
The comment section was weird. It turned out that there were some people there who thought this was perfectly reasonable, giving examples of "necessary expenditures" from their own lives that were just as excessive when examined. If you think that building a deck or buying a new bed simply because it's "time for a new one" are necessary expenditures then it's kind of hard to be sympathetic when you complain about how you have no money for long-term savings.
Is there just some basic personality type that finds it hard to be responsible with money, or is this a failure of education somehow? I have ideas for how to help but help will be unwelcome by people who refuse to recognize that they have a problem.
When I first started colorizing photos back in 2015, some of the reactions I got were, well, pretty intense. I remember people sending me these long, passionate emails, accusing me of falsifying and manipulating history.
So this is hardly an AI-specific issue. It's always been something to be on guard for. As others in this thread have pointed out, Stalin was airbrushing out political rivals from photos back in the 30s. Heck damnatio memoriae goes back as far as history itself does. Ancient Pharoahs would have the names of their predecessors chiseled off of monuments so they could "claim" them as their own work.
you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn't make it legally binding, right?
And you know that doesn't necessarily imply the reverse? Granting a site a license to use the stuff you post there is a pretty basic and reasonable thing to agree to in exchange for them letting you post stuff there in the first place.
hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services
As others have been pointing out to you in this thread, that also is not a sign that the previous ToS didn't cover this. They're just being clearer about what they can do.
Go ahead and refrain from using their services if you don't agree to the terms under which they're offering those services. Nobody's forcing you.
You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies?
The ToSes would generally have a blanket permission in them to license the data to third-party companies and whatnot. I went back through historical Reddit ToS versions a little while back and that was in there from the start.
Also in there was a clause allowing them to update their ToS, so even if the blanket permission wasn't there then it is now and you agreed to that too.
Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.
It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it's still being argued. There are some legal cases before the courts that will clarify this in various jurisdictions but I'm not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data.
The new jobs may come whether they "mean to" or not, though.
All that money that gets saved goes somewhere. Yes, "trickle-down" is a lie, simply feeding more money to already-rich people won't mean much to the economy. But if AI makes it cheaper to run a company it can also make it cheaper to start and grow a company. It's not just giant companies that will be making use of these tools.
Yeah, and as a programmer-person I've pondered where new programmers will come from once AIs replace all the interns.
There's a potential solution, though. Have you ever sat down with an AI and used it as a "tutor" while learning new stuff? It no doubt varies from person to person since different people learn different ways, but I've found it downright incredible how easy it is to learn when I've got an infinitely-patient AI I can ask to have walk me through new stuff. So maybe in future lawyers and programmers and whatnot can just skip the larval stage.
I find that often "movements" end up focused more on just continuing their movement rather than the underlying purpose of why they started moving in the first place.
That's a stopgap measure. The root problem is the electorate and I'm really not sure how to fix that.
Perhaps the best way to "Trump proof" the transatlantic relationship is to accept that the transatlantic relationship is not an immutable fact of nature and be ready for it to maybe fall apart someday.