my_hat_stinks

Trans men and castrated men exist, I don’t think it’s the balls.

Dark matter might not even exist, all we know is that gravity-based predictions break down after a certain point. Dark matter is the just the most popular proposed solution where you essentially just add extra undetectable mass until it works. The distant second is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) or some variation of it, which is where you try to tweak the theories to fit observations instead. It has the same problem as dark matter where we keep coming up with better experiments which always fail to find anything.

There’s a similar problem at the opposite end of the scale spectrum too; quantum mechanics doesn’t play nice with our current understanding of gravity leading to the search for the “theory of everything”. This is why I personally lean towards the idea that it’s our theories that are wrong and not an undetectable mass, but this isn’t my field so my opinion isn’t worth much (especially since a majority actually working in the field lean towards dark matter as far as I can tell).

Sounds like snake oil. Their website says you need to sip water through their straw for 3 seconds two/three times, then repeat those 3 sips up to 2 more times so that puts the effectiveness at somewhere around that of pretty much any other free home remedy. The way those instructions are written seems like it’s meant to intentionally obfuscate that fact too, it’s incredibly unnatural to say “do this thing two to three times, up to three times”.

That’s an understatement, PayPal will pretty much always side with the buyer no matter how ridiculous and outlandish their claim. I even had one “dispute” where the scammer changed the dispute reason which caused PayPal to ignore what I’d already submitted and close it in their favour by default as “no response”. PayPal is very much pro-scammer, avoid if possible.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had to deal with clients directly, I don’t think I’ll ever miss it.

Because that would be the same quality. This is the internet, if an image is still recognisable after being shared five times you’re doing something wrong.

I feel like someone not releasing anything but squatting IP rights for 13 years is a poor argument for longer copyright terms.

Now what indeed? You’re still paying all the maintenance fees but now you’re not generating regular income, and you’re at the mercy of your government’s empty home laws. Where I am I believe that’s currently just paying double taxes, but it’s also entirely possible for government to pass more regulations if there’s a lot of unused housing they need.

To me that seems like a demonstration of why it would work. Allowing the people living there to buy the house from the government moved housing from the hands of government into private ownership. Allowing the people living there to buy the home from a corporate landlord will remove housing from corporate landlords, which is exactly what’s needed if we want people to be able to afford housing. People buying the home they live in from their landlord won’t remove council housing.

It’ll probably drive down house prices but that’s kind of the point. As a private homeowner I’d lose out on some potential money if I ever moved so that’s not ideal, but that’s a fair “loss” if it means other people can afford somewhere to live.

Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you’ve described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction “send this”. If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that’s the notification to be sent, the only reason I’d hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.

The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.

From what you’ve described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.

Why do you people do this? This isn’t [email protected].

What? It’s called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It’s like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it’s rules. That’s simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You’re just wrong.

You’re entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.

I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice’s use breaches Bob’s licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob’s use breaches Alice’s licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie’s use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.

By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.

It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties’ already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It’s incredibly unlikely anyone “fears” you giving them more rights.

If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they’re saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you’re licencing your content or are they complaining that you’re saying the licence does something it does not do?

As for “what business it is” of mine; this is a public forum. If you’re not ready to defend yourself don’t spread misinformation.

People calling you out for being wrong isn’t astroturfing. It’s not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.

The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.

If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.

And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.

It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.

Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.

CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others’ use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you’ll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as “consideration”). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg “Copyright © 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.”) but that hasn’t been a requirement for a long time.

Adding a CC link and falsely claiming it’s an anti-AI licence is misinformation and undoubtedly does add confusion.

Likely because it’s blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there’d be fewer downvotes if they didn’t incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.

Imagine if someone ended every comment with “I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME.”

A bit silly, no?

Probably not, I don’t even drink cows milk any more. Not because I’m vegan or anything like that, just purely for practical reasons. Cow milk goes off at the drop of a hat but I always manage to get through all my oat milk or almond milk without it turning.