Calling it “an open legal question” implies meaningful doubt, but in reality, the text, intent, succession laws, and scholarly consensus have already answered this decisively. The only way this alternate interpretation prevails is a corrupt supreme court. Oh…wait. 🤣

The 12th Amendment provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” As such, anyone barred by the 22nd Amendment from being elected president is also ineligible to serve as vice president, and so a twice-elected president cannot return to power through vice-presidential succession.

If a person is constitutionally “ineligible to the office of President,” they are also skipped over in the presidential line of succession under the Presidential Succession Act (3 U.S.C. §19), which prohibits anyone ineligible to serve as president from assuming the office.

The ghouls in power currently don’t understand or don’t care, and by the time this is tested, it will likely be rubber stamped by the supreme court. But, there’s still value in understanding ahead of time that no, that is not a constitutionally valid approach.

The biggest win is getting more people involved and comfortable with protesting and non compliance. Today was the largest single day protest in American history and up 40% from No Kings I.

You can’t go from zero to prolonged protests over night. Each event needs to build on the last with increased experience and new participation.

The same and obvious inconsistent purpose for guns does not apply to fascism, which is why your example with guns is a poor example.

• If you are anti-fascist, you reject fascism.
• If you are anti-anti-fascist, you accept fascism.

Similarly,

• If you are anti-guns, you reject guns.
• If you are anti-anti-guns, you accept guns.

See how it works just as well as “negation” so long as you don’t attach an inconsistent purpose or meaning to what you’re negating?

You can certainly go ahead and assign inconsistency to antifa to make the point that anti-antifa is not equivalent to pro-fascism, but that really has nothing to do with the meaning of the anti- prefix.

So you can call it an anti-murder device.

Yes, but you can also call it a murder device. So when you say “anti-gun” and follow your logic we don’t know if you’ve meant you’re anti-defense or anti-murder. The ambiguity exists because of how you framed your example by attaching an inconsistent purpose for the gun.

The same ambiguity does not exist for anti-fascist.

Some lower bounds have been established: https://oeis.org/A099155

I think you meant compression. This is exactly how I prefer to describe it, except I also mention lossy compression for those that would understand what that means.

Because it is harmful to the creators that use the value of their work to make a living.

There already exists a choice in the marketplace: creators can attach a permissive license to their work if they want to. Some do, but many do not. Why do you suppose that is?

you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship

Yes, I believe creative works should be protected as that expression has value and in a digital world it is too simple to copy and deprive the original author of the value of their work. This applies equally to Disney and Tumblr artists.

I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

I’ll repeat what you said with emphasis:

AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

The emphasized part is incorrect. It’s not the same, yet your argument seems to be that because (your claim) it is the same, then it’s no different from a human reading all of these books.

Regarding your last point, copyright law doesn’t just kick in because you try to pass something off as an original (by, for ex, marketing a book as being from a best selling author). It applies based on similarity whether you mention the original author or not.

AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

This statement is the basis for your argument and it is simply not correct.

Training LLMs and similar AI models is much closer to a sophisticated lossy compression algorithm than it is to human learning. The processes are not at all similar given our current understanding of human learning.

AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from, so why would it be illegal?

The current Disney lawsuit against Midjourney is illustrative - literally, it includes numerous side-by-side comparisons - of how AI models are capable of recreating iconic copyrighted work that is indistinguishable from the original.

If a machine can replicate your writing style because it could identify certain patterns, words, sentence structure, etc then as long as it’s not pretending to create things attributed to you, there’s no issue.

An AI doesn’t create works on its own. A human instructs AI to do so. Attribution is also irrelevant. If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).

Even if it didn’t outright display the code you need to enter, my guess is this and similar implementations hide further vulnerabilities like: the numbers aren’t generated with a secure random number generator, or the validation call isn’t resistant to simple brute force quickly guessing every possible number, or the number is known client side for validation, etc.

Well that’s easy. The protests aren’t illegal. Therefore this amounts to nothing.

Fuck this dude.

Might be the best reason to put him in charge.

I’m pretty sure now we all MUST use the women’s restroom as we’re all legally female.

There’s no doubt in my mind that this happened and continues to happen.

New Folder/

I have zero sympathy for those who only regret their vote for Trump now that his policies - which were always obvious - come back to haunt them personally.

Exactly. This headline could also have easily been “Republicans hold government funding hostage to force first federal anti-LGBTQ legislation in nearly 30 years.”