Ava

They died doing what they loved. Placing their very life into the hands of techbro con artists.

I'm sure that the protest size limits of 100 will be respected at a school with 55,000 students. This is definitely a realistic and effective strategy for them to take.

Well of course not. They don't see cis children as people either, just as property. You're a person in the womb, property until you turn 18, and a drag on society after that unless you're a christian conservative.

Not even, it's just a case of "this role was one of many eliminated as part of a larger cost-cutting measure affecting 200 employees."

Sure, but the argument isn't "should we ban work that is based on the study of past cultural creation" it's "we should prevent computational/corporate exploitation of past cultural creation in order to protect the interests of humans."

Back pocket trick?

I'm not sure what EXACTLY you'd be looking for from a search feature as I'm mostly a light user myself, but there's a search option which will search the contents of all your notes. I can't tell you how robust it is, but it does have exclusion (desiredTerm -excludeTerm) search at least, and there's standard Find/Replace functionality once you're in the specific note.

So... it pays in exposure?

I think you'll find loads of young people without time for art, too.

The claim in this article seems to me to be flawed. The core claim seems to be that the landlord cannot pass on the costs to the tenant because the market is at capacity. But what this really means is, the tax WILL be passed through to the tenants until maximum exploitation of the tenants (as a resource) has been reached. Which would include the UBI safety net as well, since the system demands (intentionally) maximum exploitation of this limited resource, no?

At this point, the landlord can continue to reduce their OWN share of the profits, sure. But the LVT will continue to increase over time, so eventually the landlord is priced out of the area, the building closes, and all tenants are evicted. MAYBE this particular landlord has enough capital to re-invest into the land that it may again become profitable with additional investment, but EVENTUALLY this will not be the case, and the property must be sold. This centralizes all land assets over time into the control of whichever conglomerate has enough resources to maximally develop the area.

And what of the tenants? Rent prices are deemed to have been at their maximum for the region. Tenants in this case are displaced, at least for the amount of time that redevelopment will take. And, because the value of a particular parcel of land seems likely to be similar to a neighboring one of identical size, this increase is likely to affect ALL housing providers in a particular area with similar circumstances, since we have to assume that development doesn't happen in massively disproportionate jumps.

It doesn't seem clear to me at all why landlords wouldn't be able to pass the value on to tenants.

The minors were charged with 20 counts of creating child sex abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims’ moral integrity.

The article doesn't make the claim that the AI is what makes it illegal, simply that AI was used. It's literally the second sentence. Indeed, it goes on to highlight that there are legal novelties prosecuting the use of AI.