Kids are probably old enough to get it. I would just think that you will be loading a shotgun that's going to shoot you in the face down the line. Either the ladies will get in each other's hair or, worse, they'll team up against you. I think your girlfriend is either insane or not entirely honest when she says she would be fine with your arrangement. I would sooner suggest you look for a place closeby. I'm guessing the 15yo is eye rolling you hard and the 13yo will soon not care about you either. You've carried them through the divorce rough spot with your unique living arrangement. Take a bow and let it go. Provide a better environment for your new relationship.
FriendOfDeSoto
joined 2 years ago
But everyone deserves a threat and if you live in the USA, then tip is required...
That typo is more apt than intended.
but nobody is discussing this initiative
Well, go ahead. Discuss it. I don't know what it is.
We are just asking old questions here. The printing press, novels, and pamphlets were the end of truth! We struggled, many people died, but life moved on. Then newspapers, more death, radio, world wars. Television, photoshop, the internet - fewer deaths in between but still. And life moved on.
Every new medium brought a phase of uncertainty (and possible carnage). That's where we are right now. Every time we think "this is the worst EVER." Until the next thing comes around. We will figure out the slop tsunami as well. I think fewer people will die than during the reformation.
Some people will successfully bend truth to generated video or whatever. But in the end, most will not succeed. Because we get wiser at spotting the bullshit. Q Anon showed us the learning isn't a linear development; it follows more of a two steps forward, one step back pattern.
Have you ever noticed the difference in screen quality before? Did you ever watch a YT video on something slightly better than a cathode ray monitor and thought to yourself: "hmm, this is shit."? If so, don't cheap out on the tablet. Maybe a used iPad might even be ideal. I'm leaning Apple here because Android tablet screens tend to be worse on average and there will be fewer good ones on the resale market.
If you don't want a big TV, how about a smaller one that you can cast content to? Just as another suggestion because other folks have already suggested laptops.
As you get older, your eyes turn to shit and most of this won't matter that much. So you're right to be cautious on the spending.
I proudly watch movies on my phone. If I don't want to watch Paw Patrol or Frozen it's the only way to get some not-made-for-kids content in. And I can take it to the toilet and continue watching. And I don't mean porn, just to clarify. Sure, as the cinematic experience goes, it isn't what Christopher Nolan had in mind but shit happens. It's that or nothing.
Er war auch erschüttert, wie viele Menschen gar nicht wissen, was ihr Rotwein wert ist.
No. This is how the legal system works. When you appeal to a higher court, they can make a call themselves when massive mistakes were made at the lower level or they can say the lower court overlooked something and then make them redo their work. It's a convenient choice for the higher judges not to have to do more work themselves. But it's part of the process.
Loosely defined legal terms. A "computer program" can be copyrighted. You can write your own that does the same thing but you cannot copy the other code and slap your label on it. With a lot of imagination and bending the words of the shitty outdated law, you could say a website is also a "computer program." You cannot just go into the code and change it, e.g. by blocking ads. The lower court ruling didn't take this possible interpretation into account and now has to rule again with this in mind. Nothing's been decided yet. We're running a little hot in this thread on misleading headlines.
Let's take a deep breath and consider what's happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.
It's entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it's not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it's eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.
So the headline should read more like "German court does not rule out that ad blocking could be a copyright infringement."
The argument that Axel Springer is just doing it for their love of democracy is also comical. Media pluralism is important, I agree with them that far, but they are stuck in an outdated mindset. They launched a silly tabloid Fox News wannabe TV channel and failed. They are trying to force eyeballs on their content like you are at a news agent. Meanwhile, news is happening on TikTok and so-called AI is going to reduce their page views to dust. By the time we get a final ruling they will have pivoted strategy 10 times to keep the c-suite in caviar while the established media business that made them successful is rotting away under their assess.
Corporate needs you to find the difference between this picture and this picture.
"Random" "Random, with rules"
Me: They're the same picture.
Having to learn about genetics made me drop biology as a subject as soon as I could in school. I might have been able to wrap my head around it slightly better than OP but not by much.
I'm not a geneticist, I don't even play one on TV. But i'm fairly confident in saying: evening out? That's not how this works. When your daddy's sperm combined with your mother's egg, a whole host of chance processes happened to make up your genes. It's random as far as I can tell. It isn't just averaging out between them.
The study isn't about how good so-called AI is at detecting cancer. The study is about how these doctors lose the ability to spot cancer after having delegated the spotting part of their difficult jobs to a model. They looked at the numbers before the introduction, while using it, and then when they took this assistance away. This study can say something about these doctors' behavior. I don't think it proves so-called AI is shit at it. It's more about how humans get lazy. Roughly six generations ago people could recite poetry from memory, know the dates of historical importance, and remember 50 phone numbers. Now we're like eff that I got those in my phone plus Wikipedia access. It's more like that.