ArchRecord

The same way you do it digitally: add a thin layer of DRM that gives you legal protection, but doesn't actually do much on a technical level. Check a license key from the game drive in the same way you'd check the key of software someone paid you for, then let the code run on their machine.

DRM itself isn't a very good way of protecting media. The functional protections are almost nonexistent due to the nature of it. If you want to let someone play/watch/read content, you can't also make it magically impossible for them to just take the code/video/text, and copy paste it somewhere else. The only thing DRM does is give you the legal right to invoke the state as a way of enforcing copyright law against anyone who 'pirates' your work.

Any fraud that could happen likely wouldn't be stopped no matter what they tried. (or rather, if they did nothing protection-wise)

Just because an LLM sounds smart and human-like doesn't mean it will magically solve climate change after being directly implicated in resource consumption we know from actual scientists, today, will make the problem worse.

They don't believe it.

They just think their investors will.

And republicans will still say that mainstream media has a heavy left bias, and they don't trust them.

The problem is that welfare systems, such as those that provide housing, that distinguish who is eligible by how much they can afford it, to a certain degree, inevitably depress higher levels of economic activity, and good saving behavior, through the very nature by which they're operated.

If we say that someone is no longer eligible for free housing if they earn, say, $2,000+ a month, and housing would otherwise cost $500 a month, then if they're currently earning $1,500 a month (the same they'd effectively have if they had to pay $500 a month for housing on a $2,000 a month salary) they have a direct incentive to not make over $2,000, unless they can guarantee they'll make at least that much plus $500 more to compensate for the difference. If they earned $1,800 a month, they'd be making $300 more than someone making $2,000, but paying $500 a month for housing after hitting the cutoff.

This isn't just a hypothetical either. While this 2021 study does mention some benefits of means testing, such as more targeted expenditure, it ultimately shows that...

"An asset means-test incentivizes low-income households to hold few financial assets making them vulnerable to predictable and unpredictable income changes."

...and sees that, in the end, while it can marginally increase the cost of these social programs to the taxpayer, it ultimately does more to benefit the individuals receiving the assistance.

Or how about this research done by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve that states:

"the elimination of testing limits, such as in policies similar to a UBI, could present a welfare-improving alternative to the current system, though not without large economic trade-offs." (They effectively mean worse targeting of funds, but better overall results)

Means-testing directly reduces the incentives that lead to higher overall household wealth, and quality of life.

Not having means-testing increases total income, which also means increased tax revenue. That same tax revenue can then go to funding the housing system as a whole, but it won't directly, substantively punish people for an increase in income past an arbitrary threshold.

Not to mention the increased administrative cost of performing means testing, as opposed to doing unconditional support, which could reduce the amount of money actually going to funding housing, in favor of funding jobs for people that audit income levels of housing applicants.

Anything we humans need for fundamental existence in today's society should be free to the individual, and be a cost we all pay as a society to respect the existence of other human beings. Anything above that is up to the individual to either provide for themselves, or receive as a result of the value they contribute to society through labor.

That's my broader belief system, and thus, housing falls under that for me. The better we meet individual's needs, the easier it becomes for them to contribute back to society, and experience upward class mobility.

I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can't even just say it's a right "unless you have no job," or "unless you're unable to fork over $500 a month," because employment is ultimately up to the discretion of employers, who, even today, don't even consider most unhoused people for jobs, because they don't have stable housing, but to get stable housing, those people need jobs. (this even applies to many shelters, which will require unhoused people to either be employed, or be constantly seeking employment)

We know that adding hoops to jump through to get welfare assistance only harms those who need to depend on it the most, without providing any significant socioeconomic benefit, so why should we apply that same logic to housing, if we determine that it should be a right of all human beings?

I'm not saying the housing has to be great. It doesn't need to be spacious, have all the amenities, or even have things like good quality lighting or good soundproofing from adjacent housing units, but at a bare minimum, everyone deserves somewhere to live.

I'm 100% in favor of requiring models to be open source. That's been my belief for a while now, because clearly, if someone wants to make an AI model off the backs of other people's work, they shouldn't be allowed to restrict or charge access to those models to the same people who had their work used, let alone other people more broadly.

It's mildly effective in the sense that it will decimate click-through rates, but if enough people did it, they would start filtering by IP, and you'd need to change how many ads it clicks on so it looks more human.

It also still gives advertisers your data, since it still has to load the ads on your system to click them, so it's not as privacy-preserving as a full-on adblocker that outright blocks every advertisement and tracker related network request in the first place.

Your daily reminder that basic housing should be absolutely zero fucking dollars because housing should be a human right, and anything above 0% should be criminal.

This can actually be true, depending on how the system is configured.

For instance, if you and someone else use the same locally-hosted Stable Diffusion UI, both put the exact same prompt, and are using the same seed, # of steps, and dimensions, you'll get an identical result.

The only reason outputs are different between prompts is because of the noise from the seed, normally randomly set between generations, which can be easily set to the same value as someone else's generation, and will yield an identical result unless the prompt is changed.

I'm glad about this, honestly.

If you want to use an AI model trained on vast sums of publicly posted work, go for it, but be ready for the result to be made into a truly public work that you don't own at the end of it all.

Conservatism is a death cult.

They don't care if you're healthy, if your community survives, if your kids get a good education, or if the national debt goes up, down, or sideways.

They only do what gives them immediate gratification based on their own faulty morals.