• 0 Posts
  • 370 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle


  • If they do the form correctly, then it’s just an extra step for you to confirm. One flow I’ve seen that would accomplish this is:

    1. You enter your address into a form that can be auto-filled
    2. You submit the address
    3. If the address validates, the site saves the form and shows you the address in a more readable format. You can click Edit to make changes.
    4. If the address doesn’t validate, the site displays a modal asking you to confirm the address. If another address they were able to look up looks similar, it suggests you use that instead. It’s one click to continue editing, to use the suggested address, or to use what you originally entered.

    That said, if you’re regularly seeing the wrong address pop up it may be worth submitting a request to get your address added to the database they use. That process will differ depending on your location and the address verification service(s) used by the sites that are causing issues. If you’re in the US, a first step is to confirm that the USPS database has your address listed correctly, as their database is used by some downstream address verification services like “Melissa.” I believe that requires a visit to your local post office, but you may be able to fix it by calling your region’s USPS Address Management System office.




  • Good point!

    If OP is hourly, those 3 hours should be billed as work - probably under a generic HR-related category if one is available.

    If OP is salaried exempt, then this would fall under “doing any work at all” (all that’s needed to be paid for the day) and if sick time is tracked by day and not by hour, then OP doesn’t need to use one. If it’s tracked hourly then OP should make sure to only use 5 sick hours (or less, depending on how long the work-related conversations took) and depending on employer policies may not need to use any sick time at all.

    This also cut into the time OP could have been using to rest. It would be very reasonable for OP to need an extra day to recover, as a result.



  • Generally, usage of the term “gentrification” refers to the improvement of neighborhoods - or other places where people live, like apartment complexes - and, due to increased cost of living, the displacement of the people who used to live there. Displacement of less wealthy current residents when gentrification occurs is so common that it’s implied. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t have such low opinions of gentrification.

    If a forest has been gentrified, therefore, then - if you interpret “gentrified” in the same way - it follows that people who have been living there have been displaced. And since those people were living in a forest - not in a cabin in a forest - they’re necessarily homeless. Since OP didn’t say that they were building houses or apartments in the forest, that would mean that the wealthier people who displaced them were also homeless.

    Since the context was another commenter calling “gentrified forest” a cursed phrase, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.




  • Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

    Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

    I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

    If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

    Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

    The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

    What if it was for a car?

    I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.








  • It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:

    Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

    • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
    • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
    • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
    • Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
    • Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
    • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
    • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
    • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.

    Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.



  • From the feature comparison at https://github.com/meichthys/foss_note_apps only two FOSS apps support handwriting: Joplin (with a plugin) which gets a subjective 6/10 score, and TriliumNext, which gets a subjective 2/10 score. I personally dislike Joplin but many people love it, so I recommend giving it a shot. EDIT: I installed Joplin using the APK from the site and both the handwriting and Excalidraw plugins were “not available on mobile,” so I have to rescind my recommendation. On my iOS device, the plugins didn’t even show up in the search.

    I think TriliumNext is great, but the mobile experience is still lacking (though they are tracking several issues to improve here). There’s no dedicated mobile app but they at least have a PWA. It also needs to be self-hosted, but doing so is straightforward if you’re already using Docker. The handwriting is done via a built-in Excalidraw integration.

    Here are some options not captured in that list:

    Obsidian is not open source, but also has an Excalidraw plugin. I’ve not used it yet but I’ve seen multiple discussions saying that it’s very well done and has additional functionality on top of base Excalidraw. There’s also an open source (MIT) plugin for Obsidian that adds support for handwritten notes. I only use Obsidian on my work computer and haven’t used it either, though I plan to install the Excalidraw plugin Monday.

    StylusLabs Write is FOSS (AGPL 3.0), multiplatform, and has a free Android apk available. Note that the Google Play version has had updates suspended. I just learned about it and don’t know how it otherwise measures up. I’m planning to check it out, though.

    You can use any note app that has Excalidraw support, so long as you don’t need your handwritten text to be OCRed. That means that the following are all options: