Most people have always been OK with working reasonable jobs for good pay, though. Work is not the problem. Unchecked greed is.

Nothing. The law is unconstitutional.

He spoke carelessly, but he didn't exactly say what the author said he said. You can in fact do many things with it. Copyright doesn't care what you do if you aren't copying. That's the definition of the word.

That was .. not convincing. I'm here to learn things. Why are you?

To be clear, all of the big media groups and all of the big AI companies are in favor of expanding copyright law to give themselves more power. If one of them wins or loses on an issue like this, it doesn't improve our life in any way.

Everyone has their own opinion, but I think the problem with AI is not that people are developing fancy Turing test machines, but rather that the whole industry is full of cynical speculation where people are getting rich knowing that they can't deliver what they've promised, at great expense to everyone else in society.

Is there anything specific to open source about this question? If you're a software developer, you might have to decide whether you want to work for a shady company, or whether you want your smaller company to contract with a larger shady company. Those are I think harder decisions to make, because it could be your job on the line.

In the open source world, at least you don't know for sure what people are going to do with your work.

But we do know that if a company is looking to be evil, it's probably going to find a way, whether or not it uses your library.

I don't think your definition of middle class is what most people use when they talk about it.

This is really obvious if you think about people remarking on the death of the middle class. They're not saying that the mean or the median doesn't exist. They are saying that families like the Simpsons are much less common than they used to be.

What a joke of a headline. That's not what making ends meet means. They are wealthy, by definition they can afford to make ends meet.

Historically that's not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It's just that they do so much damage while they're around.

And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.

Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it's more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.

Since long ago, my friend. Citizens United was a landmark in my opinion, although there are probably older rulings that showed how little they care about basic functionality in a democracy.

My interpretation of the article is that it's a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that's a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that's not a bribe.

Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.

What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it's not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.