I would agree, but if cars can just drive straight, why should bikes be slowed down?

Fast road bike drivers will then just drive in the road instead, because there they can just keep their speed unhindered.

If bike lanes have a worse experience then driving on the road, for instance sharp curves, steeper hills, worse maintained asphalt or less optimal ways to turn into a side road, then bicycle drivers will want to continue to use the road. Because they are treated as a second class traffic participant.

Cars instead should be treated as a second-class vehicle, because it requires more space, infrastructure and is less efficient.

Well, it isn't open hardware. It's license isn't OSH compliant.

No? This isn't a open source printer, its license isn't at least OSI compliant and also not FSF compatible.

And the everything else. Since it isn't under a open source license.

Pleading guilty would have at least demonstrated some remorse.

I'd rather forgive someone that said "Sorry, I did something bad, and learn from it" then someone that just first say "I didn't do it." and then when informed that they aren't going to be punished say "Whatever." and walk away.

So, she not pleading guilty and still not getting punished, while at fault is more rediculus to me.

But she didn't plead guilty, according to the article. She pleded 'no-contest' so she didn't admit guilt, just stopped defending herself after she heard that she isn't going to be punished anyway.

She just walked away after the judge said she can do that without consequences.

In case of illegal numbers, intention matters. Because any number could be converted to different numbers, for instance through 'xor encryption' different 'encoding' or other mathematical operations, which would equally be illegal if used with the intention to copy copyright protected material.

This was the case previously. You cannot simply reencode a video, a big number on your disk, with a different codec into another number in order to circumvent copyright.

However, if big business now argues that copyright protected work encoded in neuronal network models is not violating copyright and generated work has no protection, then this previous rule isn't true anymore. And we can strip copyright from everything using that 'hack'.

I had a similar thought. If LLMs and image models do not violate copyright, they could be used to copyright-wash everything.

Just train a model on source code of the company you work for or the copyright protected material you have access to, release that model publicly and then let a friend use it to reproduce the secret, copyright protected work.

Well, did you know there was a fork of gimp called glimpse, that was created because of that name?

Well... its abandoned now... So... apparently the name didn't make it more popular.

[Edit: removed AI written articles about glimpse.]

https://web.archive.org/web/20191226042940/https://glimpse-editor.org/about/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230325235741/https://github.com/glimpse-editor

https://web.archive.org/web/20230325235732mp_/https://glimpse-editor.org/posts/a-project-on-hiatus/

The point I am making is about protecting teens from adults. So teen-per-default means that adults can freely talk to teens, which should be prevented. Either allow no teens on your platform, or teens have to proof that they are teens first.

Adults (and teens for that matter) are pretty good at obfuscating grooming.

So an adult could just create two accounts, one to access teen spaces, where they don't verify their age l and one for accessing adult spaces, where the age gets verified?

Teamspeak isn't open source... Use Mumble, MediaMTX or Matrix instead.