The argument in this piece is a classic example of slippery slope-ism. The question of fair use, or of balancing between copyright maximalism and copyright minimalism, is a so-called line-drawing problem (given a spectrum of cases, deciding where the line of “ok” vs “not ok” should be). The article says that ANY decision in favor of the photographer/against Warhol would basically ruin fair use doctrine.
This proposition has barely a hint of truth in it. Especially considering how clever lawyers, SCOTUS justices included, can be in distinguishing one case from the next.
> I think if you have the luxury of assuming every token is a dictionary word, you can do much better by simply encoding each word as its index in the dictionary.
The ultimate significance of the patents contained within the portfolio (how they will empower business plans, why they may be quite valuable) will not necessarily be apparent from simply looking at the technology described. And a potential buyer would always want to keep these hidden things (essentially its own business plans) secret.
Comparing ALL software developers to builders or veterinarians isn’t fair. Veterinarians are continually holding animals’ lives in their hands. Builders almost invariably build things that can fall on their head and kill them—so a license is needed. If you just want to build a doll house, though, no one is going to require a license.
Software developers sometimes work on critical infrastructure—and licensing there does make sense. But requiring a license for me to build a silly web app seems like a classic example of what people complain about when they complain about unnecessary government regulation.
Admittedly it seems less common, but... there certainly are some Smeds in Sweden (and the rest of Scandinavia). The names are not ALL sons/sens and geographic features... https://forebears.io/surnames/smed
> It sounds like you would need to be exceptionally careful that your meta-process didn't "find" some signal in pure noise (via re-using test sets and so on).
It sounds like you’re actually talking about ordinary levels of carefulness in this (ML) context.
> The attempt to use computers to assist in racial classification tasks has helped sharpen the issues because computers can't deal with fuzzy concepts. If you try to define an ethnic code that is logically complete, consistent, and determinable for every person using current technology, you find that you can't.
> There seems to be a silent conspiracy to deny the existence of mixed racial groups in the United States. Most such people have acquiesced to this conspiracy and don't even think of themselves in those terms. Instead, they go along with the idea that they are members of one of the races recognized by the government. In fact, they often identify with a traditional race that represents only a small fraction of their genetic heritage!
Planning to do sentiment analysis in the future on your own writing that you’re also planning to do in the future seems like using a cannon to kill a mosquito—way overA-powered and unlikely to yield nuanced results anyhow. Why not just add to your journal entries a few quantitative (incl. multiple choice) measures of how you felt each day? Then there’s need to deduce anything about how you probably felt—it’s right there in black and white, and with much more nuance.
The rest of your self-tracking sounds like a fun project.