Sounds like Play Music All Access subscribers are safe for the time being.

Having a usable product while your opponents continually shoot themselves in the foot is a viable market strategy.

No, because apple’s monopoly doesnt count because they’re upfront about it being a monopoly.

Which is stupid, but that’s how it works apparently

It’s not like the current group of users is perfect either. There’s a lot of circlejerk opinions going around, and I’ve seen being get majorly downvoted for posting factual info that went against the “hivemind” opinion.

Windows is absolutely abusing their position as the dominant OS to push their other products. The number of “no don’t do that” messages and pop ups when trying to install chrome on a windows computer is clearly anti-competitive, and the only reason microsoft has been getting away with it is because Edge/etc hasn’t achieved enough market share.

Right, but in my case I’m not actually a customer of the local electric company that offers fiber. However pressure from them got my telco company (the only choice I have besides satellite) to offer me fiber, raising my max speed from 3Mb/s to 1000Mb/s.

Do you live off grid?

Definitely seeing that where I live. One of the local electric companies started offering gigabit fiber for $75, where most people were paying a lot more than that for DSL or low quality satellite (which were the only choices before). It’s been a huge improvement for those people, and it’s forced some of the long stagnant Telco companies to actually compete and start rolling out fiber of their own.

They added wifi with a extra circuit board hidden inside the calculator case. It’s connected to the calculators communication port, and pretends to be another calculator. So they can use the calculator’s built in “send” function to send variables/text/etc to the hidden card, which then uses it’s internet connection to look up answers and send the results back.

Obviously there have been major improvements over the past 80 years, but that’s still considered the first neural network. The need for multi-layer neural networks was recognized by 1969, but the knowledge of how to do that took awhile to be worked out.

Fun fact, the Perceptron is basically the first machine learning AI, and it was invented in 1943. It took a long time and many advancements in hardware before it became recognizable as the AI of today, but it’s hardly a new idea.

That was a good investigation and explanation about a weird number of up votes. Thanks for explaining it.

Looks great, I’ve been using Stealth but it has trouble with albums and some other content. It also doesn’t let me search for posts in a specific subreddit.

This looks like it will do both of those things, as well as being actively maintained and improved. Thanks for making it.

A lot of password managers support 2fa now. I use Enpass because I got a lifetime license a long time ago (it’s also available to people with Google Play pass), but I know some other popular options have it too.

That’s covered by section 107 of the US copyright law, and is actually fine and protected as free use in most cases. As long as the work isn’t a direct copy and instead changes the result to be something different.

All parody type music is protected in this way, whether it’s new lyrics to a song, or even something less “creative” like performing the lyrics of song A to the melody and style of song B.

I think a fairer comparison in that case would be the difficulty of building a camera vs the difficulty of building and programming an AI capable computer.

That doesn’t really make sense either way though, no one is building their camera/computer from raw materials and then arguing that gives them better intellectual rights.

If you snap a photo of something, you own the photo (at least in the US).

There’s a solid argument that someone doing complex AI image generation has done way more to create the final product than someone snapping a quick pic with their phone.

There’s nothing stopping you from going to youtube, listening to a bunch of hit country songs there, and using that inspiration to write a “hit country song about getting your balls caught in a screen door”. That music was free to access, and your ability to create derivative works is fully protected by copyright law.

So if that’s what the AI is doing, then it would be fully legal if it was a person. The question courts are trying to figure out is if AI should be treated like people when it comes to “learning” and creating derivative works.

I think there are good arguments to both sides of that issue. The big advantage of ruling against AI having those rights is that it means that record labels and other rights holders can get compensation for their content being used. The main disadvantage is that high cost barriers to training material will kill off open-source and small company AI, guaranteeing that generative AI is fully controlled by tech giant companies like Google, Microsoft, and Adobe.

I think the best legal outcome is one that attempts to protect both: companies and individuals below a certain revenue threshold (or other scale metrics) can freely train on the open web, but are required to track what was used for training. As they grow, there will be different tiers where they’re required to start paying for the content their model was trained on. Obviously this solution needs a lot of work before being a viable option, but I think something similar to this is the best way to both have competition in the AI space and make sure people get compensated.

At least in the western world I think it’s possible. A lot of people I know who don’t know much of anything about computers before this now know of Crowdstrike, although they don’t know any specifics.

I’m not sure to be honest.