I think with the USSR at least, that their reactor designs were supposed to be less safe than western reactor designs.

Was it because they were a shitty oligarchy claiming to be communist? Maybe, they did make a lot of garbage decisions.

I think the US has the record for most nuclear disasters by a lot but two of the worst were in the USSR.

Pretty sure it has to do with how the plant is designed and operated as opposed to what economic or governmental system it happens to exist under.

Bullocks. You could make the crime for stealing death and execute everyone who does. There would still be stealing.

Simply put most criminals don’t think about consequences.

This only applies to rational actors. The problem is most criminals are not rational nor thinking of consequences.

Case in point, criminals know convenience stores have cameras but still openly rob and steal from them.

For real, all those guys were always cutthroats. How do you think they dominated the markets? It was not because they shared and encouraged competition. No, they stole, lied, and cheated their way to the top.

What in the hell are people with brain implants going to do when they stop supporting their hardware or keep additional features behind a paywall. People would be forced to pay whatever the company wanted.

This is ripe for human rights abuse on a level we have never seen before. Imagine being locked out of your own body. Without important safety guards and laws to protect people it would surely cause untold suffering.

That is a long winded way to say you are a copyright defender. Your insisting on finding an alternative to a broken system so rent seekers can continue to exist is naive to say the least.

I think most people with your stance (don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater) really have no idea how broken copyright and intellectual property is.

AI companies have already proven copyright is DOA. It was never designed for the little guy. That is just propaganda you have fallen prey to.

Simply put copyright was not needed for all of human history and it is still not needed. Pretending you have a unique idea, song, painting, etc in a world of billions of humans is beyond ridiculous.

The concept was already broken from the start because everything in science and art is iterative. Giving monopoly power to rent seekers is the natural result of a broken concept.

Look! We found the anti anti-microsoft user in their natural habitat of talking shit on social media. They are from the same family bootlickers and related to the Tossaladers. Don’t mention you are an alternative OS person around them or they may go into a blind rage.

If you put something on the Internet you are giving up ownership of it. This is reality and companies taking advantage of this for AI have already proven this is true.

You are not going to be able to put the cat back in the bag. The whole concept of ownership over art, ideas, and our very culture was always ridiculous.

It is past time to do away with the joke of the legal framework we call IP law. It is merely a tool for monied interests to extract more obscene profit from our culture at this point.

There is only one way forward and that is sweeping privacy protections. No more data collection, no more targeted advertising, no more dark patterns. The problem is corporations are not going to let that happen without a fight.

That is some good stuff actually. All the haters can focus on non-existent AI and the rest of us can work on improving society while they are distracted. Perfect scapegoat.

First, how do you account for all the art made before copyright existed. Second, what about all the art created everyday where the creator does not pursue copyright let alone try to enforce their rights in a court of law. These two scenarios disprove your assertion that art needs copyright.

Perhaps you are under the misconception that artists need to make a living. Art is an expression of our culture and it is not inherently tied to making money. How many people are creating art right now without the intention to sell it. I will clue you in, there is a lot of people, millions who do this everyday.

The amount of art created for personal use dwarfs that of commercial use by a thousand fold. Copyright does not need to protect these artists at all. Read that, the majority of artists do not need or ever use copyright.

All art is iterative. This means every piece of art is built upon the art that came before it. Copying is literally how it is done. You know Led Zeppelin just copied a bunch of old blues songs? Oh you didn’t because you think artists create stuff out of thin air apparently.

Stealing is depriving someone of their property. Copying does not do this at all. You are pushing a false narrative to prop up your flawed argument. Plain and simple.

Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.

Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.

What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don’t even own their own works?

Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.

Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.

The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.

We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.

And when they finally caught him

He did say remove conservatives…

Private vs public is not a new debate by any means. I think the tax preparation business in the US a great example. Decades ago the US government was deciding whether to develop a government web based front end to file US taxes. Predictably the existing big players objected to this and offered a deal.

The gist of the deal was they would let most tax players file for free. Why waste government money and resources when the private sector can do it cheaper. Sounds good right?

Well in the end it did not work out that way. Websites used dark patterns to get tax preparers to pay when they should not. They had many data breaches and you can assure yourself they mined the fuck out of any data you share with them.

I like the idea of a standard government phone. Secured by our best technology and locked up tight from data miners.

Perhaps passing stringent privacy laws and regulating the hell out of these technology companies could be enough to turn the tide and certainly they would prefer this to the prospect of the government taking away their monopolies.

I am firmly on the side of the government providing these services though because of the reality we are facing.

There is a reason we don’t just use any email. It takes time and energy to change providers and in the case of being locked out not even possible. I have no issue with private email, but I do have a problem with the government expecting to communicate with people and not providing that means of communication.

Until we recognize email and banking as a right we will continue to allow private companies and the government to fuck us over. Private companies are all spying on you do not believe their privacy bullshit for a second.

You may be better off doing business with a private company from a country who actually respects your privacy through codified laws, but that does not really solve the problem.

You would have actual rights and redress with a government agency plus when someone hacks the government’s data it would be a big deal and people would go to prison instead of a private company just shrugging their shoulders and saying oh well.

The government would not need to sell your data. The government would not be able to just change terms of service on a whim. The government would be mandated to provide the services without having to enshittify services later on to capitalize on profits.

The current system of the government calling the shots but not being held responsible should come to an end and these basic services should be provided as a right. To think that private companies can literally destroy your life by removing your ability to bank or communicate and not be held responsible is beyond ridiculous.

It is way past time for the US government to offer their citizens email that is not owned by a private company and used as a tool to steal your private information.

This private-public partnership that controls all of our banking and communication is pure bullshit. It is basic services the government should provide. Instead we have private companies either charging us exorbitant fees or turning us into the commodity.

Meanwhile the government has complete control and can tell them to stop servicing us at any time and there is no redress. The government can literally tell your bank to stop doing business with you and you have no rights. Plus, being a private company, they can also stop servicing you because they happen to have a hair up their ass today.

There is no real choice anymore and the consumer always gets screwed. We really fell down the privatization well of retardation and it does not look like we are clawing our way back up anytime soon.

Spoken like a true CEO. About time for a merger riiight?

Every single poster here has relied on disruptive technologies in their life. They don’t even realize that they couldn’t even make these arguments here if it was not for people before them pushing the envelope.

They don’t know the history of their technology nor corporate law. If they did they would just roll their eyes every time an entrenched economic interest started saber rattling about the next disruptive technology that is going to steal their profits.

The posters here are the people who complained about horsewhip manufactures that were going out of business because of cars. They are ignorant and act like the few sound bytes they heard make them an expert.

Tesla, “We are fucking liars.”

Allowing someone to act out on their deranged fantasies just results in reinforcing this behavior. No, it would not help them.

We learned in the early eighties that allowing people to scream, tear up stuff, and generally destroy things that it did not help them move past their feelings of anger. If you hit things to deal with anger it becomes a feedback loop of hitting more things more often to deal with the emotion.

CEO should not be compensated in shares because they have insider information and can benefit from manipulation. It has always been a recipe for disaster.

Unrelated to the topic but has anyone else noticed the quality of the soft serve has gone down dramatically in the last several years. I got a ice cream cone and it didn’t even taste good. I was looking at their advert for a Mcflurry and it looked all ice crystally and not good at all. If they can’t even make the picture look good that is saying something.

I am pretty sure they are insinuating that it is antitrust violation. It probably is but our current governance seems unwilling to do anything about anti-competitive practices.