> So none of [the royalty system] makes sense... if a song is played on the radio, 100% of the royalties go to the songwriter. But if the same song is played on a streaming service, only about 20% of the royalties go to the songwriter. Where does that come from?"
Radio uses public airwaves, and is largely an exception to how the music business works. Not even recording artists get revenue from radio plays, only the songwriters (aka copyright holders).
"In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
In America, when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, if they don't have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, they will charge your possessions with a crime. If you have cash in your vehicle, they can charge the cash with a crime, like being used for drug trafficking. Similarly, they can charge a locked phone with a crime of drug trafficking, without actually having to prove it. Mostly because taking the item means they will begin an "investigation" into whether or not it "committed" a crime.
"In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property that is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant; the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned."
This just sounds like a gateway to the widespread open robbery and stealing that is the corruption plaguing police in 3rd world countries. How could this pass any scrutiny as a valid anti-drug strategy? To dry up funds, the better strategy would have always been, to at least temporary destroy the prices by state-production of drugs.
This protestant mindset regarding vices and how to fight them is really self-destructive to the society it possess, to the point were it creates more corruption and moral decay then the one it fought in the first place. Society was saved, by destroying all of society.
I don't get the praise over GitHub code search. I find it very inaccurate and often missing references etc. Maybe it depends on the language you are using it with? (Go here)
Have you tried the new search that was just launched? It seems to have significantly improved search accuracy. I agree the old version wasn't that great (though still was one of the better options for finding usage of things in the wild like rarely used OSS dependencies I needed to debug).
I was in the beta, which im assuming was the same. I find it sometimes misses references in the same folder as the file I'm look at when I do reference search.
Tracker Detect only scans for AirTags when the user manually requests a scan. Car thieves and other users who do not want to be tracked by AirTags would be better off using the AirGuard app on Android, which scans for AirTags and other Bluetooth tracking devices in the background automatically:
If the US gives other countries an ample head start to establish the major AI companies and doesn't compete, it is unlikely that it's GDP will support as good a standard of living in the future.
I mean, by this logic only the single leading AI country will have any decent standard of living.
But if you believe that many counties will have a decent standard of living/gdp growth, then it stands to reason that not being first or best shouldn’t matter too much.
The US wasn’t first with cell phones and that doesn’t seem to hav mattered too much no matter how u Iquitos they are.
A country like the USA can always catch up if they decide they want to
I don't buy that at all. But even if it's accurate, it feels a little like "we have to burn the village in order to save it".
If barreling forward full steam brings on serious problems, that would harm our standard of living as well. I'm not sure I'm OK with letting other people roll the dice on my future to that degree.
I don't like the fact that OpenAI is a private company, meaning that wealth will further concentrate from its growth. It is ironic too because it can't become public due to the pledge of it's non profit parent to restrict the profit potential of the for profit entity.
