My understanding (I'm not a climate scientist) is that yes, net energy was zero over the "right" period of time (i.e. incoming energy from the sun balanced energy lost by radiating to space).
Human migration (under various situations / stresses like famines) has been studied in economics, sociology, etc..
There are also studies about generational poverty, medical literature on helping people recover from traumatic conditions, etc..
Not to read any bad intent in your comment, but there also have been studies about social darwinism that have a long track record of problems. I think people do still do studies about genetic inheritance etc., but it's probably impossible to draw society-level conclusions without data.
I don’t think you can prevent scraping or use in ML corpuses in this way. Copyright prevents the creation of non-transformative copies of a work other than some protected use cases (parody, education, etc). All OSS licenses do is provide a right to copy a work provided certain conditions (attribution, copy left) are met. But the general legal consensus as far as I know is that most ML models meet the threshold for being a new transformative work, so copyright doesn’t apply. Accordingly, you can’t use copyright to prevent something from being part of a ML corpus.
That said, I if your question is broader than the article… if you’re just talking about non-transformative uses (I.e., just using open source software) I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t create a license that doesn’t allow software to be deployed into certain environments. Some examples:
> But the general legal consensus as far as I know is that most ML models meet the threshold for being a new transformative work, so copyright doesn’t apply.
> Copyright prevents the creation of non-transformative copies of a work
It also prevents transformative derivatives.
Both nontransformative copies and transformative derivative works may meet (in the US) the exception for fair use, which is the usual argument for nonlicensed use in ML training.
The Oversight Board has overturned Meta’s original decision to remove a Facebook post comparing the Russian army in Ukraine to Nazis and quoting a poem that calls for the killing of fascists
My understanding is that Alameda was a market maker, which should have less exposure to down / upswings.
What kind of bets was Alameda making? Why would it need so much leverage?
I understand why loaning money to Alameda could be rationalized a risky, but not sketchy move (if Alameda posted collateral, paid reasonable terms like anyone else would, etc.).
I wonder how many CIA employees work at any of the top 20 US companies. Ex-CIA employees probably also work at every tech / industrial / health / oil company in decent numbers?
I think we have to tolerate a certain amount of irrationality from shareholders.
If you bought a $100k home which then dipped to $80k during Covid, would you accept an unsolicited bid of $90k?
It's reasonable for some people to take the bid, since you could arguably buy another comparable house for $80k and pocket the $10k difference, but I think a lot of other people would reasonably choose not to.
(I'm not totally sure if this logic scales to board rooms / billions of dollars, but curious to hear thoughts.)
I don't think the logical disconnect here is about whether it scales to billions of dollars. The problem is that people live in their homes and there are many frictional costs associated with moving. You need to pick something much more fungible.
I own several stocks that have dropped in the last few months. If someone offered me a 20% premium to sell them today, I would do so in a heartbeat. I would even do so if it meant the company would go private and I couldn't buy that stock again.
Theoretically, the main point here is that Facebook has an independent fact checker program, and some of those fact checkers rated Russian media posts (which would lead to a big scary overlay and a reduction in views)
I'd guess they would have used some other excuse to block Facebook sooner than later anyways though.
"independent", are you really able to say it with straight face? I'm not even talking of russian posts, it is as partisan as can be, supporting Dem agenda and suppressing GOP.
GOP voters/media, like the Russian government, are big spreaders of fake news - which is why so much of their media gets removed by fact checkers. They aren't supporting the Democrats or the GOP directly.
Interestingly, if you read the Mueller report you will see that Russia generated fake news for Democrats as well (it just didn't spread as well as on its own).
It's probably not perfectly accurate to frame this as DEM vs GOP agenda. It's closer to think of it in terms for Blue Tribe vs Red Tribe. And of course the Covid-19 stuff is the great example of this. 23 months ago you could get banned, or at least your posts blocked, for saying things that we now think are probably true. And this persists around some specific issues.
I tend to get shadowbanned for mild posts — eg, publishing the NIH grant where they describe engineering viruses at WIV or the NIH letter saying they enhanced WIV-1.
I wouldn’t describe it at Dem/GOP so much as narrative/against — but with the politics of COVID being what they are, there’s a correlation between Republicans objecting to various things and censorship.
I’m apparently a “conspiracy theorist” and source of “misinformation” because I actually read government documents. Oh well.
Various regulators probably wouldn't let Apple use 5G components produced outside of a [TBD democratic ally of the US]