Crazy huh? If an author wrote something as a child and lived over a hundred, you could hit even two hundred :)
F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author, died in December 1940. Given the rules around copyright I would have expected things to expire in 2010 (death of author, roll to next calendar year, +70 years) so I'm unsure what happened here.
I was under the impression that the Mickey Mouse Protection Act 1998[1] extended the copyright protection for works retroactively (though already public domain works were excluded).
That being said, I guess the act had precautions to stop it from reducing the copyright protection for edge cases like these?
The US only switched to the life + 70 system in recent decades, and it doesn't retroactively apply.
I think if you add a child as a coauthor, the copyright will last longer. Nobody seems to do that, probably because it now lasts long enough for just about anybody.
I'm well aware, I had the opportunity to read it in high school, though that was because of my grade stream; students in a 'lower' stream didn't get the same material.
Our prom theme the year I graduated was "The roaring 20s". The 2013 film had released months prior, and I remember discussing with friends how misleading it was--making the parties look incredible, while missing the book's subtler commentary. People who only glanced at the book, or only saw the film, can easily walk away thinking the Roaring Twenties were all glamour and fun, which is exactly the gap I was (poorly) pointing out in my earlier comment.
Yeah, I remember reading it in highschool and all we talked about eas the love story and parties. I re-read it in my early thirties for some reason and quickly realized the story was about temporal and moral tragedy. Daisy and Gatsby aren't romantics; they are morally shallow and selfish. I felt like the book was more about how we created a world were we train ourselves to chase glamor, but are punished for it in the process.
Funny enough a while back my wife and her friends were talking about having a "Gatsby" themed party. I think that is exactly what woukd have Fitzgerald rolling in the grave. Haha
That isn't what the claim is about. I mean I don't think the source is particularly convincing but the claim is that it figured out the significance of the text not the literal meaning of the words
The interesting claim is that this would be hard for an expert to do, which is basically unsupported outside of anonymous experts who spent an unknown amount of time on the question. It also doesn't quote any experts on whether Gemini's conclusions are reasonable.
What I do, I do for the people. The terrible tool known as AI shall be limited to my use so that only I need suffer its presence while the rest of you glory on unburdened.
> Surprisingly neurotic files full of strange comments
1. Have you looked at block lists before?
2. Do you have a specific example of what in these blocklists is strange/neurotic? I swear I've skimmed all of them a few times now and although I won't be using them, I'm struggling to understand what's odd about them.
> So-called source available software is a software for which its source code is made publicly available for access. It might or might not be legal to share or modify the software or its source code.
Yes. Members of the National Guard have been deployed, and government officials have publicly stated their intent to deploy additional forces.
From the Wikipedia page on the US National Guard [1]:
> The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions.
The National Guard constitutes military troops under federal activation.
1. When discussing "the most repressive Western governments", we exclude Communist and Islamist regimes by definition. The West refers to North America and Western Europe, where no Communist or Islamist government has held power. You can't reasonably claim the Western right is less authoritarian by pointing to non-Western examples.
2. The claim that "it's always the left that is motivated by ideology" ignores that right-wing movements are frequently driven by ideological commitments: religious conservatism, ethnonationalism, free-market fundamentalism, and so on. Authoritarian right-wing regimes often justify their actions through explicit ideological frameworks.
3. What mechanism in right-wing ideology "specifically designed to be against" authoritarianism are you referring to? Current consolidation of executive power in the US, rollbacks of institutional checks, and expanding surveillance capabilities suggest otherwise. If right-wing ideology inherently resists authoritarianism, how do you explain broad right-wing support for these trends?
4. Body counts correlate with state capacity and willingness to use violence, not economic system. Authoritarian regimes across the political spectrum have committed mass atrocities. Capitalist regimes have overseen famines (Bengal, Ireland) and genocides just as Communist ones have. The common factor is authoritarianism, not left vs. right.
Both extremes don't listen and arguments always fall on deaf ears, especially when perceived as ideologically different. Merits of the argument are irrelevant. Most don't evolve past"My dad is stronger than your dad", it just morphs into "my God is better than your god", or in more recent years "my politics/policy smarter than your policy".
The people at the top want the same thing: to remain in rule. They agree the best way is oppression, they just don't agree who the oppressors should be.
People in the middle usually all want the same thing: better lives, but can't agree which oppressors are the lesser evils
I meant more generally, that the ruling/politico class is the same everywhere. They'll weaponise ideology they think will get them more votes. They're basically just wealthy and powerful reprobates playing us all for emotional fools.
As for the concentration camp thing you brought up, I know it's hollow words on the Internet, but I'm sorry that it's happening. I live in the UK and tend to avoid news halfway across the world that I can't do anything about. It tends to make my (already precarious) mental healthy worse.
As for the Twitter thing... I think Twitter (or any privately owned social media platform) is free to ban people. I think going to jail for hollow comments made on the Internet is not okay though.
But also, these things are kind of orthogonal anyway.
And for context, I'm what most people on the right would call a libtard: gay, neuro divergent, and the cherry on top is that I'm also a filthy immigrant. So it goes without saying that I strongly disagree with a lot of the stuff said by the"hard right", but silencing/cancelling people won't help improve the situation. It just breeds more contempt and leads into authoritarianism. And it makes the people in the middle question why is the other side so afraid of oppositing ideas.
Authoritarian systems are bad whether right or left leaning. I come from a country ravaged by left leaning authoritarianism that's still recovering from that aftermaths (economically, politically, etc) even if I was born after it.
The zeitgeist changes, so just because it's in my "libtard" interest right now, it doesn't mean it will always be. The left becomes right and vice versa. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
So who will pay for universal healthcare? And if we spend on universal healthcare, what do we give up in return? If we don't exploit resources and capacities, we have less money to go around. Standards of living suffer, mostly affecting the very same people who want free healthcare.
People who want universal healthcare exercise magic money thinking, even though others keep trying to explain that there's no free lunch. It's always other people or other sources who should bear the burden because they cannot afford healthcare for their loved ones. It's obvious why others don't want to pay to everyone else.
Being banned from Twitter is not oppression, but canceling a late night TV show is. You may want to pull your skirt down, your hypocrisy is showing.
I live in France, we have Universal Healthcare here. We individually spend less than you Americans on healthcare, as the costs are distributed across the entire population. The state also acts as a single buyer, giving them more leverage against labs, and we don't have to pay our tithe to parasitic insurance companies either. Finally, we live longer than you, so clearly our system is superior in every way. Stop rehashing the same old republican soup about "no free lunch" or "magical thinking".
15K+ people with no criminal records detained for no other reasons than because they displeased the racist masked thugs made armed force by the Trump admin. But oh no, someone somewhere might get "cancelled" and never be able to speak ever again in public because of left meanies complaining about them online (something that actually never happened).
F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author, died in December 1940. Given the rules around copyright I would have expected things to expire in 2010 (death of author, roll to next calendar year, +70 years) so I'm unsure what happened here.