• 2 Posts
  • 1.36K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: April 13th, 2024

help-circle
  • I think it’s all performative bullshit, not good policy.

    Some decision maker has to appear innovative to his superiours, so he decides to have some number of locations assigned to a trial group and some bullshit installed. Even if it fails, just as long as he finds the right moment to start appearing critical of the experiment he can still pull off his play. After all moving fast and failing fast are also virtue in modern corporate bullshit lingo.






  • I found something more informative over here:

    With the new s. 73 a, a proposal is made to introduce a ban on deepfakes of natural persons’ personal, physical characteristics. Personal, physical characteristics are to be understood as the traits and features that define a person and are unique to the individual, such as appearance, voice, movements, etc.

    What is special about the proposed provision is that, unlike other provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not require the existence of a copyright-protected “work” or “performance”, but the protection rather covers all natural persons. This applies regardless of whether they are artists or creators in the legal sense.

    Thus, the protection comprises the unique characteristics of individuals, which are closely linked to one’s person. For this reason, it is also proposed that consent to public disclosure must be given individually, and the area cannot be covered by a collective licence agreement.

    The ban only applies to the public disclosure of deepfakes, meaning that there is nothing preventing deepfakes from being made available within the private sphere – such as at a private party or in relation to the right of reproduction.


  • Sounds like this is not true as written.

    A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.

    A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
    A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot.




  • Leap years are each fourth year, except each hundredth year, except each thousandth fourhundredth year.

    1896 leap year
    1900 not leap year
    1904 leap year

    1996 leap year
    2000 leap year
    2004 leap year

    2096 leap year
    2100 not leap year
    2104 leap year

    Then you just arrange the 10 year window in different positions to overlap 1 to 3 leap years to reveal the three outcomes of the bug.

    - / - - - / - - - /
    - - / - - - / - - -
    - - 0 - - - / - - -

    - is a normal year, / is a leap year, 0 is an exceptional non-leap year.









  • Well I don’t know… I worked with boomers who first built out the internet in my country. Now they mostly retired, but the Gen-Xers who remain are also incredible.

    My dad who’s also a boomer and an anesthesiologist got admin rights at the hospital he worked at because he helped everyone around with their computer troubles and the tech support trusted him and were happy he reduced their ticket load.

    Maybe you guys just know the wrong people.


  • They don’t deserve all this media attention just because they got a lucky birth

    While I agree with you in principle, this guy in particular didn’t have a lucky birth. His parents were not aristocrats, his father is a felon and didn’t stick around, his mother raised him alone at first. His grandparents on the mothers side are divorced and his grandpa is also a felon.

    However when he was four and a half his mother married into the royal house. So he would have had a privileged upbringing from then on. So he’s still super fucked up, to piss it into the wind with violent crime.