catreadingabook

Dreams are at least somewhat influenced by your recent thoughts and experiences. For example, many studies found that people dreamed more about disease and confinement during the pandemic (here's a medical journal article about it). You probably have a higher chance of influencing the subject of your dreams if you focus on the desired subject enough during the day.

This has happened before, like 30 years ago. In Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 938 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991) it was ruled that the publisher can't be sued for selling a guide book that misled a reader into eating an extremely poisonous mushroom.

I can't find anything about the authors in that case (I think Colin Dickinson and John Lucas?) ever getting sued, probably because they were in Britain so the US courts couldn't get jurisdiction over them, unlike how it could against the publisher who did business in the US.

Might be time for a change in the law.

Interesting, so what happens when an AI creates art that would infringe on a human's copyright? Would AI art of Mickey Mouse be public domain, meaning AI could be the end of Disney's insane licensing fee?

Edit: Nevermind, turns out this article is just editorialized. It isn't public domain, it just isn't eligible for the AI's creator to copyright it if it's fully autonomous.

I'm confused maybe. I've heard of gas stoves, but how does a gas oven work?

I would rephrase it further. This is about the balance of powers in the government. The argument isn't that we don't have this right, it's that it isn't a Constitutional right.

Our existing Constitutional rights are more or less straightforward - "No one can prevent you from peacefully speaking your mind," aside from exceptions like fraud and credible threats. The judicial branch, the court system, is responsible for stopping wrongdoers and overturning laws that violate those rights.

By contrast, the proposed right, "No one can prevent you from having a stable climate where you live," is completely unenforceable by the courts.

The scope is too different: it's unclear what actions and laws would be in violation of that right. Would you be infringing on your neighbor's right to a stable climate because you drove your car to work when you could have ridden a bike? Is your city infringing on your right to a stable climate if it uses incandescent light bulbs in government offices, or fails to mandate solar panels on every roof?

The point being there is no Constitutional right to a stable climate because there's not really a way to directly violate that right in a way that the courts can enforce. Instead, it needs to be a policy decision passed by legislation with specific rules and actions in mind. That's a power reserved for Congress and not the courts.

afaik Amazon tries to offload the work of vetting its vendors by requiring them to have a registered trademark. This led to all the sketchy sellers making tons of fake companies with random strings of letters as names, knowing the USPTO is going to approve "AEGIJDU Clothing" because nobody is ever going to contest that name.

That's why you see a ton of identical products listed with supposedly different, super random brand names, in case Amazon tries to take down one of the "vendors" (aka, one of the real vendor's many fronts).

When a console game finally releases a PC port and the title screen still says "Press Start," you know the keys are going to be completely unhinged like, "I" to open your inventory. "C" is yes, and "V" is no, except in the escape menu, where "Enter" is yes and "Backspace" is extra-yes. Left-click to either attack or walk forward, depending on how your character is feeling.

I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, "Oh no, I'm allowed to vote for TWO people?" and immediately bolting out the door.

A sizable portion of the population would convince themselves that the sky is green, if that was their party's official position.

And a sizable portion of politicians, of a certain moral character, would take the official position that the sky is green if someone paid them enough.

On an unrelated note, I wonder which party is heavily sponsored by the oil and gas industry?

I followed the link you used:

These standards generally reflect a social definition of race and ethnicity recognized in this country, and they do not conform to any biological, anthropological, or genetic criteria. . . . Persons who report themselves as Hispanic can be of any race and are identified as such in our data tables.

I thought the OP was ridiculous but apparently, if they genuinely identify with the culture then she might technically be correct.