Well, that’s a good point but I still think there are better services than Twitter/microblogging for that. Like our old friend RSS

Sure, but you can get that with something more long-form, too; it’s not exclusive to Twitter/microblogging .

I would argue that the format incentivizes short quips and discussions lacking nuance in favor of brevity, and yes, therefore it’s “bad” (to use their term) to use Twitter even if musk wasn’t turning it into Truth Social.

Well, arguably the microblogging format does have some intrinsic disadvantages.

I have a golden doodle and he will destroy almost any toy in a few minutes. The only exception is those solid rubbery dog toys, which take him several hours to start chipping away at.

They’re probably fine but if you are really concerned, call a local veterinarian office and ask.

There might be a choking hazard depending on how they break up? A vet would be able to tell you more definitely.

PSA standard (“real”) tennis balls are bad for dogs, especially their teeth… https://sierraveterinary.com/2022/03/29/the-dangers-of-tennis-balls/

Are you speaking legally or morally when you say someone “aught” to do something?

You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it’s released for general consumption.

The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That’s the topic at hand.

Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

I was under the impression we were talking about using copyright to prevent a work from being used to train a generative model. There’s nothing in copyright that says anything about training anything. I’m not even convinced there should be.

There’s nothing in copyright law that covers this scenario, so anyone that says it’s “absolutely” one way or the other is telling you an opinion, not a fact.

I don’t grasp the point you’re making; can you elaborate?

In that case, I agree. There’s no sane reason for weed to be illegal in a country where alcohol is not.

What does this mean? Like, a 10 year old can walk into a grocery store and buy a tomato. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean legalize it like alcohol?

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty confident that you can’t use something with a lower standard of proof as evidence in a trial that requires a higher standard of proof. Civil cases only need to be proven by the standard “a preponderance of evidence”, whereas criminal trials are required to proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It’s probably okay in the other direction, though.

Hey, I was up front about my data (or lack thereof) and we’re not talking about climate change or string theory, we’re talking about fast food delivery driver’s onboarding.

“The Internet” would just state it like a fact.

Are you saying that traditional food delivery drivers get trained specifically not to hit on people when they deliver food? I don’t have any data but I feel like that’s not really a thing. Maybe my concept of the training a food delivery driver gets is way off the mark?

I’m also pretty sure that it’s easier to give a bad review that others will see via one of these food delivery apps than it is if you go directly to the business.

I think we all agree that this is inappropriate and should not be happening, I just don’t see how it doesn’t apply at least equally to traditional delivery drivers.

Yeah I read that but I don’t have the knowledge to say “what a rookie mistake” or “in hindsight that was a bad idea”. I take it, it’s the former?

I’m not a cybersecurity expert. Did they make a foolish decision that would warrant a lack of trust, or were they just unlucky?