Comments by "" (@timogul) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

  1. Everybody is tired of hearing about him,. but he stands a very real risk of being president again, so until that stops being true, it's important to keep pointing out how catastrophic that would be to any patriotic American.
    2
  2.  @GaryGreen-h8v  I feel like I'm in that South Park episode about the human centipede.
    2
  3.  @leahblake6748  If you believe that "The only reason he didn't give them back right away is because the people trying to take them did not have the proper paperwork." does not mean that he attempted to give it back to them, then you do not understand how words work. Why do you believe admitting this would lend credibility to your positions?
    2
  4.  @leahblake6748  So you're making a semantic argument that you did not say those literal words, while I'm making a substantive argument about how the words you said conveyed that message. Why do you believe I should patronize you?
    2
  5.  @brendolbreadwar2671  Those don't sound like crimes to me. I think he meant Elon wants a pardon for crimes.
    2
  6.  @taylorlibby7642  I doubt Trump would pardon Hunter.
    2
  7. The Biden administration wants peace more.
    1
  8. Congress should just pass a law of "one price only." If you sell a drug in America, you must sell it at a single retail price, no "rebates," or "discounts" or other shenanigans. It can be whatever price you feel you need, you could set it as high as you want, it would just need to always be the SAME price regardless of customer. Obviously incredibly poor people could still get the drug at no cost to themselves, but it would prevent these companies from gaming the system and charging some customers more than others.
    1
  9. Yes, Putin needs to leave immediately.
    1
  10.  @ricky5505  "Give a mouse a cookie."
    1
  11.  @ttt5205  Meh, an artist that gets demoralized because someone else can do better is not worth bothering with. I've been a working artist for over twenty years now, and there have always been TONS of better artists than me. It's just the nature of the business. People who have art in their souls will produce art regardless of what attention they get from others for it.
    1
  12.  @ttt5205  As I said, I've been a working artist for over twenty years now. AI art is a thing, and will continue to be a thing, and will only get better and better at what they do. Artists just need to accept that and move on.
    1
  13.  @ttt5205  I'm not responsible for whether artists get demoralized or not. That's up to them. Artists don't have to accept AI art, but the world doesn't care whether they accept it or not, it's going to happen with or without their acceptance, so it would be healthier for them to accept that and move on. I don't "defend" AI art, it does not need my defense, I only point out the fact of its inevitability, and the wastefulness of pretending otherwise. Regulation would do nothing, because it would be impossible to get those regulations passed everywhere, and the places where you can use AI would swiftly outpace those where it was not allowed. Even if you somehow banned the use of AI artwork, you would still get people using AI to generate art, and then manually reproducing that are in a method that couldn't be distinguished from original art, while still requiring no human talent or inspiration. It's basically no more useful than the people who smashed industrial looms in the 1800s. Change is coming whether you agree to it or not.
    1
  14.  @ttt5205  But again, if it slowed the use of AI in the US, that would do nothing to slow its use in other parts of the world, and those parts would be pumping new art out at a much faster pace. And yes, I argued that AI should be copyrightable, because there's no reason why it shouldn't be. That's not "defending" it, it's just stating a plain fact. Also, I don't personally use AI much myself, I've used Chat GTP a few times. I personally don't like the current state of the output, I just know that it will get better. Why do you feel that you can't win the argument without taking it personally?
    1
  15.  @ttt5205  You have provided no argument, beyond "it would make artists feel sad." A lot of things make people feel sad, but that doesn't mean that holding up progress is worth doing.
    1
  16.  @ttt5205  As I said, you can present no arguments beyond "AI would make artists feel bad." None of those are actual arguments against AI or copyright of AI, they are just complaints about how you don't like it.
    1
  17.  @ttt5205  You keep repeating that YOU think certain things are legitimate concerns, without presenting any credible case as to why they would be credible concerns. The "litigation" thing is not an issue, because an AI "character mill" pumping out millions of images cannot credibly copyright every possible combination of character designs or something. That's not how copyright works. I don't see any novel form of litigation that could arise from AI artwork. And you use your ignorance as a defense all the time, even if you don't realize it.
    1
  18.  @ttt5205  AI can indeed create derivative works, just like humans can, and do. This is nothing novel. AI is actually better equipped to identify and correct derivative works than human artists are. You can't use these to "falsely accuse" someone of copyright violation, any more than you could do with hand drawn art, and people who made a habit of making such false claims would get in significant trouble. There are Youtube channels devoted to tracking pre-AI frivolous copyright claims, and the trouble people eventually got into by making a habit of it. AI changes nothing about this, aside from perhaps making things better. AI can indeed produce art at a faster rate, but the court systems only move so far, and we don't yet have AI lawyers, so the number of cases that could be brought remains about the same.
    1
  19. What does Mar-A-Lago have to do with anything?
    1
  20. It was because Trump took off with pallets full of documents that the National Archives were expecting, they knew those documents were missing, they asked to get them back, and they were refused on multiple occasions. Biden did not do that. So that is the difference.
    1
  21. The war doesn't really care who the US president is.
    1
  22. They probably want to challenge the case in hopes of future profits.
    1
  23.  @Jasper118  Better regulation of the wealthy, rather than just giving them more tax cuts.
    1
  24. I don't think they do get free shipping. If any businesses you're dealing with offer free shipping, then that would mean that they are the ones paying the shipping cost, as a way to encourage sales.
    1
  25.  @geraldwatts5492  There are professors that make for poor teachers, mostly in research fields, but it's hard for a PHD to get a teaching role at a university without some actual talent at passing on knowledge. There are way more PHDs than there are teaching roles, and there are way more lucrative opportunities in the private sector for most PHDs than teaching.
    1
  26. He did everything within his power to make America a worse country than he found it. Ol'Scratch owes him a Bourbon when he gets there.
    1
  27. He's not in office, he'll have his chance.
    1
  28.  @kaktus_sanchez  Or so your soviet schoolbooks would tell you. The reality is that Russia was the aggressor in both Georgia and Ukraine. Putin made clear that he believed he had the right to conquer Ukraine and absorb it into Russia. No country is safe from Russian aggression, particularly any former Soviet states. The reality is that Russia has NO right to ANY territory outside of its post-Soviet borders. The Russian Empire is dead and will stay that way.
    1
  29. Well, the difference there is that Hillary and Joe did not commit actual crimes, while Republicans commit lots of crimes. It would only be unfair if the Democrats also committed crimes.
    1
  30. Democrats "we'd just like for everyone's votes to be counted." Republicans: "But then we'd lose! You're against democracy!"
    1
  31.  @VishnuIITMadras96  Why? What's happening there?
    1
  32.  @donaldduckthekiller6726 Why would I care what you think?
    1
  33.  @donaldduckthekiller6726  This does not seem like the sort of thing a rational person would do, but judging by your name, I can see you're far from rational.
    1
  34. I feel like any project like this should be done in stages. Have the government buy up all the necessary land, then start with a stable core, the government buildings they need, some housing of all levels, a functional city of maybe tens of thousands, but nowhere near where they hope for it to grow, but arranged in such a way that it's easy to expand outward without breaking anything. Then, once the city exists and is standing on its own, investment should appear, and the city can expand outward to fill what gaps exist.
    1
  35. It's not plural, it's only Putin.
    1
  36. Exactly. Trump was in the wrong because he refused to turn the documents over, while Biden turned them over immediately once he found them.
    1
  37.  @doop6769  You can't argue Trump's case, because the records act would require he turn those documents over.
    1
  38.  @leahblake6748  Trump did not eventually turn them over. They were seized after serving a search warrant, because he had refused to turn them over for many months already, and even lied about having already turned them over. It's even highly suspected that he still has other documents that he has yet to turn over, but they don't have enough evidence to serve a warrant on it.
    1
  39.  @PitofDoom666  No, this would be a murder attempt. It is Russia attacking them. That is not their fault.
    1
  40.  @PitofDoom666  Again, it was entirely a war of choice by Russia. They invaded. Nobody forced them to, no war would have taken place had they not. It is entirely their war. Ukraine is only defending themselves from pointless aggression.
    1
  41.  @shonemumy  How so?
    1
  42.  @PitofDoom666  YT deletes posts on both sides. But yet, Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine did nothing.
    1
  43.  @Isaiah53-h9v  It is more likely to escalate to W W 3 if Putin is allowed to keep Ukraine. You are making the same arguments Neville Chamberlain made.
    1
  44.  @Isaiah53-h9v  You are making the same arguments Neville Chamberlain made. It did not work out for him.
    1
  45.  @Isaiah53-h9v  Are you there right now risking it all for Putin yet?
    1
  46.  @AB-wf8ek  Yeah, although "copyright squatting" is a lot harder than patent or trademark squatting. You can't just spit out a million different characters and then claim ownership over anything "substantially similar" to their designs. The works would need to be published in a significant manner, such that the future person who might run afoul of the copyright could possibly be aware of them. It would be a lot of work. You would also have to register each one, which would cost you money, and you would be unlikely to get that money back.
    1
  47.  @AB-wf8ek  Well, I don't think "The AI says so" will be admissible in court, at least not any time soon. I think that there will be tools for AI to determine "substantial similarity," if there aren't already, but that these will just be "suggestions," rather than absolute fact. That is, if you use one, it might look through ten million pictures and go "I think this one looks like that one," but ultimately, a human would have to look at the two and agree that they do, rather than just accepting that as fact. Likewise, if an AI missed a connection, but a human showed two similar images and made their case, "the AI didn't catch it" is no excuse. But then on the other hand, a lot of people take things like DNA evidence, lie detectors, handwriting analysis, and other things as being more 100% proof than they might actually be, so having an AI back you up would probably be strong in a court case.
    1
  48.  @leahblake6748  No, Trump did not have the authority to have them, even if he had "declassified" them. Ex-Presidents do not have any right to keep those documents whether they are classified at the time or not.
    1
  49.  @teekay_1  Yes, the special counsel said that he could not win the case on the grounds that he did not have enough evidence of wrongdoing to convince a jury. How he framed that is his own personal opinion, and irrelevant to anything else. The special counsel believes that some laws were broken, like Mike Pence did, and plenty of others in government who were not convicted of this crime, but there was not enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to convict.
    1
  50.  @teekay_1  If the Special counsel had a case, he would have brought it. He didn't, but he also wanted to rough up the Democratic candidate for President, so he said what he said. That doesn't mean any rational person should listen.
    1