If you look at Harris’ history and the constituency of the DNC in general as compared to that of the RNC, no, I think it’s fair to say that her presidency would have been very different when it comes to Israel. Keep in mind, that Trump getting elected basically have Netanyahu a multi-day orgasm. There’s a good reason for this. Likewise, all of Likud and the Kahanists.
You are literally arguing for collective punish. You realize that, right?
He has achieved a bunch of academic larping. These aren’t suitable experiences qualifying for sudden leadership of a large organization. Experiential learning is deeply important for high level leadership positions. The nature of time and space mean he simply cannot have this quality yet. Digging your heels in otherwise is such a braindead position to take. Jfc
People who are arrested are either charged with a crime or are presenting an immediate and reasonable threat. None of these are the case here. This was absolutely a violation of her due process. Thats without even getting to the issue of her visa revocation.
This is an absurd take. Under this “logic” there is literally no way to be anti-genocide. If you are elected, you cannot be anti-genocide because of some convoluted imputed condoning of state violence, so that leaves it to violent revolutionary change to fix the state, which is intrinsically a testament to “state violence” of it succeeds. Your urge to be cynical and lazy has lead you into a nihilist paradox and serves no value to anyone, including yourself.
Greenland is one of the only (the only?) largely indigenous governed country (ish) in the world and one of its official languages alongside Danish is Greenlandic, an inuit language. So, yea, for some shitty old white American dude to continue to demand annexing this country is some fucking wild bullshit.
Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn’t mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected–it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it’s effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.
The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.
Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).
The CO didn’t say AI generated works were copyrightable. In fact, the second part of the report very much affirmed their earlier decisions that AI generated content is necessarily not protected under copyright. What you are probably referring to is the discussion the Office presented about joint works style pieces–that is, where a human performed additional creative contributions to the AI generated material. In that case, the portions such that they were generated by the human contributor are protected under copyright as expected. Further, they made very clear that what constitutes creative contribution and thus gets coverage is determined on a case by case basis. None of this is all that surprising, nor does it refute the rule that AI generated material, having been authored by something other than a human, is not afforded any copyright protection whatsoever.
They could also just…not invade other countries and return to their own?
AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.
You should explain to your father that zionism did not emerge in a vacuum within the Jewish community. It was controversial the moment it arose and was as supported as yiddishist movements that were expressly anti-zionist. This was an intense divide that even resulted in violence on both sides by both sides. Nazis and the staggeringly entrenched antisemitism of eastern Europe/Russia ended up sorting it out in favor of the zionist anti-yiddishists, though.