I just want to say that AA and others like libgen and zlib have done a great job spreading knowledge in the world. For me personally, if these things didn’t exist, I couldn’t have learned a lot of what I know. This is mainly because I either don’t have access to those books - often due to my location - or, if I did have access, the cost would be very high.
The main problem, I think, is that people believe copyright is an inherent right. It is NOT. The world would never have reached this level of scientific achievement if people like Euclid, Archimedes, Al-Khwarizmi, Newton, and others had put copyright on their works. The same applies to art.
Copyright only serves to make rich corporations richer. People will still donate to authors, but they will rarely donate to corporations. Therefore, these corporations continue to push misleading narratives like 'No copyright = Broke author.'
There are two major problems with Wikipedia doing this:
1. False Positives: phrases like "on the other hand", "not only x but y" are definitely used by humans. You can't simply accuse others for using AI by just checking some phrases to be in text. I mean AI itself is trained on text written by humans, so the reason it uses those phrases is because they are more common in it's training set.
2. By making a set of what seems like AI, they give people the opportunity to just tell AI what phrases NOT to use. Every person who prompts to AI, can use it to make it more like human. Ironically, what the wikipedia itself was trying to stop.
> “The difference is not one of profit, it is one of philosophy. You believe software can be managed by a committee. I believe software requires an owner, otherwise it is dead.”
This justification is even worse than the domain squatting itself.
Some of the most influential software in history (Linux, Git, GCC, and yes, PuTTY) thrived under community-driven development. The idea that software "dies" without a single corporate owner is not just false, it’s insulting to the open-source ecosystem.
If Bitvise truly believes in their philosophy, they wouldn’t need to borrow PuTTY’s reputation by holding putty.org. Maybe they should spend less time on branding and more time studying how successful open-source projects actually work.
The amount of competition is Higher in Premier League. Teams like brentford or Brighton play top-tier football although they have no chance winning the title.
Arsenal is a complete loser, If Liverpool was instead of them in the title races of 22/23 and 23/24 they would have more chance.
It's very stupid to think that a draw is boring.
even a 0-0 match can sometimes be exciting.
What should be the measure of "boringness" of a game is Expected Goals, better known as xG. And of course a game with both teams having 1.3 xG is much better than 4xG vs. 0.04xG.
The main problem, I think, is that people believe copyright is an inherent right. It is NOT. The world would never have reached this level of scientific achievement if people like Euclid, Archimedes, Al-Khwarizmi, Newton, and others had put copyright on their works. The same applies to art.
Copyright only serves to make rich corporations richer. People will still donate to authors, but they will rarely donate to corporations. Therefore, these corporations continue to push misleading narratives like 'No copyright = Broke author.'