krellor

I was going to say, I think voters have long been able to mislead themselves, lol. Eating the onion is/was a real thing.

I got lucky in that regard I guess. My mechanic told me that I got the one model of Subaru that doesn't blow the head gasket. So fingers crossed!

Otherwise, yeah, Subaru's aren't easy to work on at home.

Best of luck!

Hey, hang in there. I hope your week stays ok. I hope you can invest some time in yourself. Have a great week!

Awesome! I've got a 2001 Subaru that I use to get to trails. Same thing; sometimes I have to walk, but at least I'm not beating up my main car for getting the kids around.

You don't deserve to have people who constantly flake out. If they are always cancelling and never initiating activities, invest the time and energy into your own well-being, hobbies, and other friendships. Best of luck with what sounds like some health challenges!

Very fun, thanks for the pictures. For whatever reason the speed of your dogs jogged my memory of skiing with my old dogs. We would skin up backcountry peaks, them with booties and leg wraps in the -20f cold. Then at the summit I'd take the skins off my skis, and the booties off their feet (otherwise they get lost), slather their feet in mushers wax, and race down the mountain. I always had to watch my speed since they maxed out around 20mph, or roughly what your dog's clocked at.

Have a great week!

I thought about the indexing situation in contrast to the user paywall. Without thinking too much about any legal argument, it would seem that NYT having a paywall for visitors is them enforcing their right to the content signaling that it isn't free for all use, while them allowing search indexers access is allowing the content to visible but not free on the market.

It reminds me of the Canadian claim that Google should pay Canadian publishers for the right to index, which I tend to disagree with. I don't think Google or Bing should owe NYT money for indexing, but I don't think allowing indexing confers the right for commercial use beyond indexing. I highly suspect OpenAI spoofed search indexers while crawling content specifically to bypass paywall and the like.

I think part of what the courts will have to weigh for the fair use arguments is the extent to which NYT it's harmed by the use, the extent to which the content is transformed, and the public interest between the two.

I find it interesting that OpenAI or Microsoft already pay AP for use of their content because it is used to ensure accurate answers are given to users. I struggle to see how the situation is different with NYT in OpenAI opinion, other than perhaps on price.

It will be interesting to see what shakes out in the courts. I'm also interested in the proposed EU rules which recognize fair use for research and education, but less so for commercial use.

Thanks for the reply! Have a great day!

The issue is that fair use is more nuanced than people think, but that the barrier to claiming fair use is higher when you are engaged in commercial activities. I'd more readily accept the fair use arguments from research institutions, companies that train and release their model weights (llama), or some other activity with a clear tie to the public benefit.

OpenAI isn't doing this work for the public benefit, regardless of the language of altruism they wrap it in. They, and Microsoft, and hoovering up others data to build a for profit product and make money. That's really what it boils down to for me. And I'm fine with them making money. But pay the people whose data you're using.

Now, in the US there is no case law on this yet and it will take years to settle. But personally, philosophically, I don't see how Microsoft taking NYT articles and turning them into a paid product is any different than Microsoft taking an open source projects that doesn't allow commercial use and sneaking it into a project.

I do agree with you, to an extent. I think much of the support, or at least lack of criticism from within higher ed was precisely because they/we/I didn't want to be lumped in with the right wing attacks or give them an inch. At the same time, that is like the stereotype of the abusive couple who form a united front against a third party.

I also know that people saying that no one really cares about the research issues also isn't true. People in higher ed care about these things. The president of Stanford resigned recently over these sorts of issues (though the data issues there were more troubling). There were also Harvard academics recording malcontent with Dr. Gay; they just didn't go and put it in the paper.

Ultimately, it sounds like what ultimately tipped things over for her was two fold: the latest round of accusations, coupled with submitting a plan to the board that apparently didn't convince them all that she was responding with appropriate urgency to the widening media pr issue. Which is a very common failing in higher ed leaders who are used to going slow and resisting calls to move faster. Unfortunately, university presidents need to control the narrative by at least creating the impression of frenetic energy to fix something, even if it is intractable in the short term.

You might find this NYT article interesting (gift link).

How Harvard’s Board Broke Up With Claudine Gay https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/06/business/claudine-gay-harvard-corporation-board.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ME0.srWq.9lxOxV9UwF1g&smid=nytcore-android-share

Ultimately, I think the board and the community wanted to help her hold out against the right wing attacks, but something about her internal plan or communications and follow up led the board to wilt in the face of persuasion from those around them.

I've never had a Starbucks gift card or used the app, but in the article they say that in store you can do a split payment using up either gift card or app balance, and pay the remainder cash. Is that something you've tried?

I can't speak to political science, but my background is computational maths. I've published papers in what I view as a very data driven field.

I cited every direct quote from prior work, and listed additional resources that I didn't explicitly reference but consulted.

So it seems sloppy to me.