FriendOfDeSoto

Neither of us are legal scholars, are we. If I pretended to be one, I would say the government acting as a user on somebody else’s platform or the government running its own platform are different enough circumstances not to derive comparisons from.

In summary: you have the cooperation of the parents, you cannot exclude the existence of a mental issues, and you are allowed to spray the item then. These are conditions I put ahead of any other suggestion.

No, I would not want to join such an instance but I wouldn’t mind its existence. Nobody could really federate with it. So you create a niche server in an already niche environment.

I am not convinced the conclusion “if the government runs it, the first amendment has to apply” is apt. Even if the server was run from under the house majority leader’s desk - which I don’t think it would, this smells more like an outsourced undertaking - moderation on the platform is not “making a law.” And proprietors of platforms are legally compelled to moderate in certain cases, e.g. when illegal stuff like child sexual abuse is involved.

There are at least two discussions going on here simultaneously. Is the process of a beefed up spell checker sucking up all the data the same as an artist looking at what had come before, before either of them churn out new art? I’m inclined to agree with you; the process does seem similar enough. The difference remains that one is a statistical model and the other is a human being. So even if the process appears similar enough, they are two different types of player and I can also agree that we should not treat them the same. One is able to throw constant massive amounts of spaghetti at the wall as long as there are chips and power and the other is limited by their health and more limited processing power. So where the compromise lands in this discussion simply isn’t clear yet. And while you and I can discuss this, I can say for myself at least I’m not smart enough to see where this goes eventually.

The other discussion is how all of it collides with existing copyright/trademark law, which is essentially different in every country. Constitutional rights, like freedoms of expression and the arts, are given to real people, not computers. But at least one supreme court in this planet has made corporate money a form of free speech. So eff knows where LLMs end up.

This is new territory we’re in. And I fear that’s why it will take another decade until we get a legal landmark decision or a political compromise that will be similar enough all around the world.

The law mostly disagrees with the memes = theft. A lot of it is covered through freedom of speech and fair use. If you have taken a bit of content, changed it a bit, recontextualized, and reposted it, you are most likely in the clear. Especially if the original content was publicly posted. This gets less clear if you are using the likeness of a private person but this will also depend on context. Where in the world you are, if this content was captured in a public space or from something published - the list goes on, like some stuff can be trademarked as well, and I’m no lawyer. A lot of these things run under the legal doctrine of “no plaintiff, no judge.” I feel artists in general have accepted that anything they post online is just potentially gone. And if no one steals their content to make money off it, they’re not going to hire a lawyer, whom they cannot afford.

And I’m not saying any of this is great but that’s an established status quo.

The reason why so-called AI generated art gets decried is twofold. It’s new and we don’t like new things. And in order for it to be created, the models have to suck in all the training data they can. And they don’t tend to pay for it. So that’s where some people see theft happening. But that’s not settled law yet because it’s fairly new, there are plaintiffs but not enough judges have passed judgement yet. Do they have to pay for stuff that’s publicly available? Where is the line, if any? Is imitation of a style okay if there is more to the work than just copying something from Studio Ghibli or Disney? These questions are going to keep a lot of legal professionals in bacon for a long time still.

This shit is hard. It’s more gray than black and white.

When they use idioms and expressions incorrectly.

YT and TT are platforms that breed weird quirk uniformity. They all grab your attention with the same phrases (“you’ll never believe …”, “what about [insert something outrageous]? Let me explain …” etc.) For a while, everybody had the same Ikea shelves behind them crammed with shit. Then I think we moved on to neon signs. It used to be fashionable to show off your expensive big microphone, probably much to the delight of its manufacturer. And that’s why I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the manufacturer paid some influencers to hold the tiny mike prominently in the shot like they would hold a dog poop bag filled with poop from a stranger’s dog. And then it was copied.

Seconded! LMMS is a good free DAW to get started.

You are making assumptions here. Twenty-something year olds are allowed to date anyone older they like, the only restrictions that apply go the other way age-wise. And dating older people doesn’t automatically lead to self-destruction. So what’s your point?

You have to phrase it as a question to get the money. When you buzz in you get something odd like 7 seconds to answer the question. If you just say “Eiffel Tower” then Ken Jennings will now probably just stare at you expectingly to rephrase your reply in that time. I think in the past Alex Trebek may have prompted candidates to rephrase their non-question answers but I haven’t seen that happening in a while (but I don’t watch it that regularly either so 🧂).

The whole point of the show is that the standard quiz show mechanic question->answer gets put on its head. The clue on the wall is the answer and the candidates have to provide a question it answers.

Since you referenced “trash mods” on reddit in this thread: I have a feeling your post may also fall foul of forum rules here. There is a question in it but most of the post isn’t about that. So don’t be surprised if a non-trashy lemmy mod comes in to mod it away.

This is not criticism; I feel very similarly about the big picture to what you wrote. Trump is not a Mao lover. He would have to know who that was first. And I think communist Chinese history is one of his many blank spots.

My word choices have given you the impression of a scheming Machiavellian teacher who reenacts the Spanish Inquisition on the boy until his classmates pelt him to death with rotten eggs. That’s on me, it’s not what I meant. I think I’ve added enough clarification in this thread at this point. So I won’t go into it again.

The opinion of one teacher, one that due to the question they asked initially and the forum they asked it in, and a few down votes are, I feel, not enough to call my argument dumb. Never mind the more personal attack that followed. Tackle the ball, not the player. If you want me to change my mind, that is.

There is a whole field of study for this, pedagogy. I am sure the first chapter of the book isn’t “kids are ruthless. The end.” I remain unconvinced that my approach, where my suggestion was preconditioned on many things to have happened first, is the worst one until I hear something that isn’t that or teetering on the edge of name calling.

It’s an enumeration of if-phrases. “If the parents don’t support the teacher” is just the first condition of many. And some things you may have to infer, like if the teacher had to talk to the parents and got cold shouldered, I think you can presume the teacher has already talked to the student too. I’m not gonna go as far as saying my post was immaculately written and presented. I would go as far as saying the options presented were at the bottom of the list. No support from the parents, maybe not even school leadership, cannot use bitter taste spray for insurance reasons, etc.

If a teacher telling a kid to get their feet off the table, to stop shooting spit wads at the row in front of them, to stop rocking back their chair because they might tip over and fall - if all these situations are okay for a teacher to say out loud in front of the class: “Kevin, stop it!” - and I think they are - then telling the kid not to chew on communally shared erasers is no different. Claiming this will immediately lead to bullying or just the threat that it might do is to an extent quixotic to me. If teachers will not assert their authority ever for fear of what the chaos kids will do, they might as well pack it in then.

Your office comparisons are insignificant here. Elementary school is a different sport entirely. There is a difference between coworkers sharing an office hierarchy and the power, responsibility, and maturity differential students/teacher, never mind the fact that offices shouldn’t employ 9yos.

OP has weighed in against the suggestion anyway. I’ll defer to them because they know more about this case than you or I.

This is something the parents should do - along being in the driver’s seat of correcting this behavior in their 9yo. In times of teachers crowd funding classroom supplies, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest “throw money at it” to a teacher. It’s not going to cost $5 just once and that’s it. If you have to beg for boardmarkers in general, this will be a line item that matters.

I want to highlight again that this suggestion was preceded by a lengthy checklist.

I think you and I have a different idea of what bullying is. I remember kids picking their nose in class and eating it in elementary school. I don’t think it took an intervention from the teacher to get that to stop. Just some kids going “ewww, that’s disgusting” got the message across. This is how society corrects behavior. I wasn’t suggesting a teacher goes before class, does a Nelson Ha-Ha, “look at that loser, go beat him later and take his lunch money.” Just something like “Kevin, the other kids need to use this eraser as well and they don’t like it full of spit. Please don’t chew on it. Thanks.” It signals to the kids this is not okay and I don’t think they will go full Lord of the Flies on him - keeping in mind the preconditions I had outlined above.

Theoretically, probably not a great experience for the people some 300mi away or closer but I don’t think it would be an extinction level event. Speed is how most of the energy gets transferred. Lower speed, smaller boom.

I think it has to stay theoretical though. You would have to turn gravity off though or make the asteroid such a weird shape that air resistance slows it down to that speed before it hits. And I think it would have to be sail-like at that point hitting at the right angle, making its impact much less threatening and making it way more likely it would’ve burned away in our atmosphere anyway. Before it hits earth there will be gravity pulling on it, most effectively from the sun and then earth. So even if cosmic forces got it to reverse beep beep beep speed before it enters earth’s gravity well, which I would call unlikely with an asterisk, then it would speed up 9.8 m/s or 22 mi/h every second it falls from the heavens. Thus making the impact more impactful than reversing speed. The asterisk being that there is a much bigger other new body in space that exerts enough gravity on the asteroid to slow it down. Which means it’s close enough to mess earth up in other ways (tidal waves, megaquakes, etc.) even if it does not also hit us, which I would assume it does though if it got this close already. So then we’re back in extinction territory whether Corsica hits us or not.

If the parents don’t support you, and you can eliminate the existence of mental issues that require treatment or special attention for chewie, and you can’t use a spray solution, I would go for gentle peer pressure. Point it out in class, do a friendly dressing down how none of the other students want to use the chewed on eraser. If he won’t stop if you say so, maybe you can get other kids to do the trick. The unwanted public attention from his peers might be enough. Would your principal be up for a bad cop routine where you can be the good cop?

I’m not going to watch the video. Site unseen I’m willing to pass judgment and consider her a truly terrible person. That doesn’t change the math though. If you have no visa to work, you may need to bow out of that job. You can’t risk denunciation on principle. Which is a fucking depressing sentence to write. But here we are in 2025.

With the blatant disregard for the rule of law this administration has already shown, it may not matter what number you fall under. A lot of it, very sadly, seems to be dependent on what you look like.

If you’re 1 through 3, why are you picking a fight with a Karen? Get out before it escalates. And if it does, keep your head down and hope for the best. Or move cities, especially if you’re #1. 4’s and 5’s may want to have proof of citizenship accessible. Keep a picture of your birth/naturalization certificate and/or passport on your phone, preferably behind a password like in a password vault app - don’t just keep it in your camera roll, it needs encrypting.

It’s also worthwhile keeping in mind that some Karens’ bark is worse than their bite. They may have gotten off on the threat enough to not go thru with it.