|
Too bad they can't mind-control themselves into not being idiots.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Does the Potterverse have cures for things like Down syndrome? They can’t fix minds, but what about genetics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Their socially accepted solution to a little boy who can't magic good is to throw him out of the window, so I'm guessing "no" to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:Does the Potterverse have cures for things like Down syndrome? They can’t fix minds, but what about genetics? Here's Rowling answer on Pottermore. Rowling posted:I decided that, broadly speaking, wizards would have the power to correct or override ‘mundane’ nature, but not ‘magical’ nature. Therefore, a wizard could catch anything a Muggle might catch, but he could cure all of it; I suppose it depends on how you interpret "catch" and "cure". There's no reference to "mundane" disorders either way outside of maybe Luna, and Hogwarts is ridiculously unsuited for purposes of accessibility, so it's entirely possible to read between the lines and interpret that the Wizarding population is big into mundane eugenics as well.+
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
I mean, you have Moody stumping around with magical prosthetics that are effective upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Isn't there one family that transformed themselves into five legged spider starfish monsters, seems like if you can do that zapping an extra chromosome is nbd
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I mean, you have Moody stumping around with magical prosthetics that are effective upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Effective Altruism sure doesn't get much more effective than asking for $28,000 to give away copies of HPMOR, which is already free (except the erosion of one's soul).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Is it even legal to sell copies of this thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:Is it even legal to sell copies of this thing? Nope. Fan works are already a "gray" legal area of sorts. I don't know if it has ever been put to a legal test whether you can publish something related to an IP you don't own for free or not; most authors and publishers (though not all) take the unspoken stance of "as long as you don't try to make money out of it, it's fine". If you do try to make money out of it, however, expect to get Cease&Desist'd at the speed of light, if not sued outright. Because 1. corporations don't like someone who are not them making money out of something they own, and 2. it could set a dangerous precedent, in that if they let it through once they might lose control of the IP altogether.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
divabot posted:Effective Altruism sure doesn't get much more effective than asking for $28,000 to give away copies of HPMOR, which is already free (except the erosion of one's soul). WTF
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
The rationality community have gradually decided that the most effective use of charity money is to give it to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:The rationality community have gradually decided that the most effective use of charity money is to give it to themselves. That's what happens when you rid yourself of all biases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Looks like it's not as bad as I thought though - GiveWell, despite being run by that sort of person, still as far as I can tell has all their recommendations be basically "medical stuff for developing countries", so they've not been completely infected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:Is it even legal to sell copies of this thing? The person distributing these booby prizes appears to be Russian, and will be distributing them to people at events either held in Russia or with a significant Russian entry. By Western standards, Russia plays notoriously fast and loose with copyright law and derivative works, as demonstrated by things like Tanya Grotter and The Last Ringbearer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:Looks like it's not as bad as I thought though - GiveWell, despite being run by that sort of person, still as far as I can tell has all their recommendations be basically "medical stuff for developing countries", so they've not been completely infected. so what vaccination drives &c i remain convinced that the best way to donate to the development of countries is a) state aid to training bureaucracies and universities and b) civil society engagement and support unless c) mine and UXO clearing efforts are applicable. medical stuff is a lot of years for the buck, but i get the awful feeling that in a lot of cases the local regime just uses it as an excuse not to provide medical services in those regions at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Why didn't Moody get himself a second magic eye? I mean, constant vigilance! Literally constant! Qwertycoatl posted:Looks like it's not as bad as I thought though - GiveWell, despite being run by that sort of person, still as far as I can tell has all their recommendations be basically "medical stuff for developing countries", so they've not been completely infected. After all, the lives of a few hundred thousand Africans a year really don't matter a lot compared to saving a hundred million million billion people from being tortured in Super-AI Superhell forever ten thousand years from now, so "rationally" there's really no point in wasting donation money on things like Malaria prevention when you could be giving it to MIRI instead. Clearly you just aren't rational enough to get it, or you would be a Facebook billionaire yourself. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I vaguely remember it being a "one-of-a-kind ancient artifact" type thingie that he had to kill some rando evil wizard in Africa for. I don't think there actually are any others for him to get. might want to give their site a look, their recommended charities work with incredibly boring and very specific things like vitamin A deficiency
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:The rationality community have gradually decided that the most effective use of charity money is to give it to themselves. Future generations are gonna look back on the 21st Century as the Century of Grifting
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:might want to give their site a look, their recommended charities work with incredibly boring and very specific things like vitamin A deficiency Cardiovorax fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Mikl posted:it could set a dangerous precedent, in that if they let it through once they might lose control of the IP altogether.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:That is not how copyright works. The rights holder can basically allow or disallow whatever copies and derivative works they want under whatever terms they want, and they can change their mind at any time. Yes, but if it's done without the copyright holder specifically allowing it then the copyright can be challenged on that basis, as they are no longer the sole provider of works falling under that copyright. edit: Jesus loving christ the loving donations these idiots are funding though. quote:($70,000): A major expansion of the Metaculus prediction platform and its community quote:($40,000): Scaling up scenario role-play for AI strategy research and training; improving the pipeline for new researchers quote:($20,000): Performing independent research in collaboration with John Salvatier quote:($70,000): Building infrastructure for the future of effective forecasting efforts quote:($25,000): Supporting aspiring researchers of AI alignment to boost themselves into productivity quote:($30,000): A research agenda rigorously connecting the internal and external views of value synthesis quote:($27,000): Building infrastructure to give X-risk researchers superforecasting ability with minimal overhead quote:($20,000): Working to prevent burnout and boost productivity within the EA and X-risk communities quote:($50,000): An offline community hub for rationalists and EAs quote:($39,000): Producing video content on AI alignment quote:($30,000): Formalizing perceptual complexity with application to safe intelligence amplification quote:($30,000): Broad project support for rationality and community building interventions quote:CFAR ($150,000): Unrestricted donation quote:($50,000): Unrestricted donation quote:($50,000): Unrestricted donation Stroth fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Stroth posted:Yes, but if it's done without the copyright holder specifically allowing it then the copyright can be challenged on that basis, as they are no longer the sole provider of works falling under that copyright. You're thinking of how trademark can work like that in some cases if the plagiarist decides to make a legal case that the trademark's identity has been neglected for so long that it cannot be said to be exclusive to one particular product made by one particular manufacturer anymore. And even then, that's only that how works for the way "Kleenex" became a generic through sheer cultural momentum. Cardiovorax fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:You're thinking of how trademark can work like that in some cases if the plagiarist decides to make a legal case that the trademark's identity has been neglected for so long that it cannot be said to be exclusive to one particular product made by one particular manufacturer anymore. And even then, that's only that how works for the way "Kleenex" became a generic through sheer cultural momentum. Trademark is about protecting your identity. You have to register a specific thing as being identifying of you (as a person or corporation) and you have to both maintain that thing's uniqueness and specify a domain. If someone is using your trademark in the specified domain (meaning that consumers could be confused as to which company or person was supplying the product or service) then you can use your trademark to get them to stop. If they're using it in a way that couldn't cause confusion then you're out of luck. Like, you might have heard of companies trademarking particular colours; that only applies if those colours are used for the kind of product that the original company sells. "Barbie pink" is trademarked, but you can use it without fear of reprisal as long as you're not selling dolls or toys or games or anything that Mattel also sells under that brand. And if you own a trademark but let others get away with using it then you may lose it based on the fact that it no longer uniquely identifies you , your business, or your product. Like if Mattel let other companies package their dolls in Barbie Pink then they'd likely lose the trademark because it would no longer be uniquely associated with their company. Copyright is about... well, technically it's supposed to be unique expressions of ideas, but it's actually pretty vague. It always comes down to a judgement call. Is this work derivative or merely inspired by another? And if it is derivative, is it parody or criticism? But it never matters whether or not it's unique. You can allow a thousand people to write fanfiction and then sue the 1,001st because it's not about identity, it's about ownership. You can allow any number of people to use your property without ceding your ownership of it, and since you still own it you can still say that this particular person is not allowed to use it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
quote:"Barbie pink" is trademarked, but you can use it without fear of reprisal as long as you're not selling dolls or toys or games or anything that Mattel also sells under that brand. And if you own a trademark but let others get away with using it then you may lose it based on the fact that it no longer uniquely identifies you , your business, or your product. Like if Mattel let other companies package their dolls in Barbie Pink then they'd likely lose the trademark because it would no longer be uniquely associated with their company. quote:You can allow any number of people to use your property without ceding your ownership of it, and since you still own it you can still say that this particular person is not allowed to use it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Trademark is about protecting your identity. You have to register a specific thing as being identifying of you (as a person or corporation) and you have to both maintain that thing's uniqueness and specify a domain. If someone is using your trademark in the specified domain (meaning that consumers could be confused as to which company or person was supplying the product or service) then you can use your trademark to get them to stop. If they're using it in a way that couldn't cause confusion then you're out of luck. Like, you might have heard of companies trademarking particular colours; that only applies if those colours are used for the kind of product that the original company sells. "Barbie pink" is trademarked, but you can use it without fear of reprisal as long as you're not selling dolls or toys or games or anything that Mattel also sells under that brand https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/05/apple-norway-progress-party-logo-trademark-opposition/ That's hardly a unique story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
They try that kind of thing every so often. I don't they have actually gotten away with it set. If they ever do, it certainly wouldn't be in Norway of all places. Scandinavia isn't exactly known for being militantly corporatist. Reminds me of that funny story about when American Budweiser tried to sue Polish Budweiser for their name and got told to kindly gently caress off and also their beer sucks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Yeah, there's a lot of confusion between the concepts of copyright and trademark. Copyright is automatic and ludicrously flexible. It basically allows the rights-holder to tell people to gently caress off whenever they want. https://www.treehugger.com/culture/artist-saves-land-pipeline-copyrighting-it-artwork-peter-von-tiesenhausen.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Oh, I think I get it. It's how Disney / Marvel can copyright their depiction of Thor and Mjolnir, but they can't trademark them because Thor and Mjolnir as concepts predate those depictions; thus, anyone can use Thor and Mjolnir, as long as they don't use the specific Marvel versions of them. Did I get it right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Oh, I think I get it. It's how Disney / Marvel can copyright their depiction of Thor and Mjolnir, but they can't trademark them because Thor and Mjolnir as concepts predate those depictions; thus, anyone can use Thor and Mjolnir, as long as they don't use the specific Marvel versions of them. Did I get it right? That is basically exactly right. That said, I think they can trademark their particular version of Thor, they just can't stop you from coming up with a different superhero also called Thor so long as he is sufficiently visually distinct from their own version, because the name is generic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Oh, I think I get it. It's how Disney / Marvel can copyright their depiction of Thor and Mjolnir, but they can't trademark them because Thor and Mjolnir as concepts predate those depictions; thus, anyone can use Thor and Mjolnir, as long as they don't use the specific Marvel versions of them. Did I get it right? Not really. Thor and Mjolnir, the Norse god and his hammer, are public domain because they predate copyright. Anyone can use them and adapt them in any way they like. Thor, the super hero, is a distinct character created and owned by Marvel. If you wrote a story that used the character of Thor, the legality of that would depend on whether it was based on the god or the super hero. They can't trademark the character of Thor because trademark doesn't apply to characters. A trademark is a word, phrase, or symbol. They could trademark the name "Thor" on the basis that comics with "Thor" in the title would be assumed to be published by Marvel, meaning that if other used it then they could be passing themselves off as published or endorsed by Marvel - except that other companies have also published comics about Thor so they might not be able to make that argument. But the difference between trademark and copyright is about the type of things they apply to. Copyright applies to the expression of ideas, trademark applies to identifying marks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
quote:They can't trademark the character of Thor because trademark doesn't apply to characters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:In practical terms, however, since they sell merchandise of these characters, they can trademark the combination of name and appearance. This is why and how selling bootleg merchandise can be illegal. Pretty sure that's copyright. The design of the character is a creative work, just like a painting or sculpture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Pretty sure that's copyright. The design of the character is a creative work, just like a painting or sculpture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:According to sites like this one, it falls under trademark law if the product takes a particular shape related to an IP, but is in and of itself not part of the intellectual property. Merchandising is treated as a type of advertising for that purpose, as far as I can tell. A Thor doll is a special, trademarked type of doll the same way a Coca Cola bottle is a special, trademarked type of glass bottle. The whole thing is very vague and complicated. In any case, it always ends up coming down to the fact that the people with all the money can do whatever they like and the rest of us are subject to their whims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The whole thing is very vague and complicated. In any case, it always ends up coming down to the fact that the people with all the money can do whatever they like and the rest of us are subject to their whims. Pretty much. It doesn't have to be a -valid- copyright or trademark case for the company to simply tie it up in court until the little guy runs out of money and settles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
The simplest tl;dr is that trademark covers branding, while copyright covers specific content, and some stuff is both branding and specific content, like book covers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
If companies start physically branding their employees, could they trademark them? Asking for a
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Chapter 113: Final Exam So Voldemort just summoned the death eaters and they're all standing around awkwardly while he lectures them about how disappointed he is in them. He tortures a couple of them to show how evil and mean he is. One of the death eaters attacks him and so he kills him in retaliation. Then Voldemort makes Harry swear an Unbreakable Vow. Eliezer Yudkowsky posted:Voldemort laughed, a strange bitter laugh. When he spoke on his high voice was precise. "Here is the oath's intent, Mr. Grim, Mr. White, Harry Potter. Listen well and comprehend the Vow that must be sworn, for its intent is also binding, and you three must share an understanding of its meaning. You will swear, Harry Potter, not to destroy the world, to take no risks when it comes to not destroying the world. This Vow may not force you into any positive action, on account of that, this Vow does not force your hand to any stupidity. Do you understand that, Mr. Grim, Mr. White? We are dealing with a prophecy of destruction. A prophecy! They can fulfill themselves in twisted ways. We must be cautious that this Vow itself does not bring that prophecy about. We dare not let this Vow force Harry Potter to stand idly after some disaster is already set in motion by his hand, because he must take some lesser risk if he tries to stop it. Nor must the Vow force him to choose a risk of truly vast destruction, over a certainty of lesser destruction. But all Harry Potter's foolishness," Voldemort's voice climbed, "all his recklessness, all his grandiose schemes and good intentions - he shall not risk them leading to disaster! He shall not gamble with the Earth's fate! No researches that might lead to catastrophe! No unbinding of seals, no opening of gates!" Voldemort's voice lowered again. "Unless this very Vow itself is somehow leading into the destruction of the world, in which case, Harry Potter, you must ignore it in that particular regard. You will not trust yourself alone in making such a determination, you must confide honestly and fully in your trusted friend, and see if that one agrees. Such is this Vow's meaning and intent. It forces only such acts as Harry Potter might choose himself, having learned that he is a prophesied instrument of destruction. For the capacity for choice must also exist, to be sacrificed. Eliezer Yudkowsky posted:"Return to your places..." said Voldemort. "Good. All eyes on the Potter child, prepare to fire the instant he tries to flee, or raise his wand, or speak any word..." The Dark Lord floated high in the air, the black-clad figure overlooking the graveyard. Again he held a gun in his left hand, and his wand in his right. "Better. Now we shall kill the Boy-Who-Lived." Eliezer Yudkwosky posted:This is your final exam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 06:18
|
|