That is super not how fair use works:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Considering that OpenAI is making a commercial profit from developing its ML models, they seem to have missed #1 already. #3 also because the model usually ingests the entire work, not just part of it.

Actually, this makes me wonder if the design of OpenAI's business structure is intended to try to abuse this:

The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc. registered in Delaware and its for-profit subsidiary OpenAI Global, LLC.

So, the "non-profit" part of OpenAI collects the data for "research" purposes, but then the for-profit side sells the product.

The most important reason for OSHA to exist is to prevent managers from cutting corners on safety. Without regulation, the companies will risk peoples' lives to save a few dollars.

"You miners don't really need dust masks, right? PPE is for sissies!"

The US government system was set up to be better than the monarchies its designers had grown up under. In this sense it has been wildly successful. But... it wasn't really designed to scale to the size it has, nor to account for the massive changes in technology that have occurred since it was written.

The leaders of the time decided to replace the first attempt only 6 years after it was ratified, and I believe they fully expected any future government to do the same if they found the current system wasn't working. They did try to make the new system more adaptable by adding the Amendment process, which was frankly genius and unprecedented in government systems prior to that.

I think it's very important to remember where and when the system we have came from, and to try to think like the people who wrote it, and to remember that at the time they had no other models for successful government beyond the writings of Enlightenment-period historians. It's very easy to criticize the current system. It's far more difficult (and substantially more important) to draft a better system.

What? there's nothing important in Pine Gap.

Even the Pentagon doesn't know where they are!

Does anyone remember MSN WebTV?

It technically worked.

birdcage

chain gang

shot box

rollin' rusty

grateful tread

chained to the wheel

"grill marks, bud"

cage against the machine?

Greenwashing.

This might be the right thing for you:

Avantree Resolve-C - USB C Wired Open-Ear Earbuds & Microphone (for Small-Medium Ear) with in-Line Controls & Over-Ear Hooks, Headphones Compatible with Samsung, iPhone 15 and Other Type C Smartphone (Amazon link)

Wraparound on-ear headphones with USB-C plug. I can't vouch for them personally though.

USB C to 3.5mm Dongle Adapter (Amazon link)

If you need to charge and listen at the same time, they make split adapters for that too. Adding 2" of wire to your wired headphones is a very minor inconvenience.

There are also wired headphones with USB-C plugs if you don't want to bother with adapters.

Well obviously they're RGB LEDs.

DPP politicians should fear for their lives.

Ah, another appeal to violence as the source of morality.

It's very funny for you to accuse anyone else of being authoritarian.

No, that is not the point that was made in this comment:

Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America's skirt like a coward.

This comment makes very plain that the writer believes that a nation only achieves independence through military force.

We're not talking about what is 'widely acknowledged', we are talking about what you have expressed as your personal belief. And you do have a morality problem:

Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America's skirt like a coward.

You believe that in order to be independent from mainland China, Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.

You made this statement. It is not about international law, or opinio juris, or any other deflection you want to attempt. It is about what you believe justifies a nation's independence, and it is solely based on the exercise of military power.

Even if I did choose the company I applied to for work, I didn't choose my coworkers, nor did I get to meet them until after I was hired. And, I certainly don't get to choose the customers I have to interact with during my work.

No, you said:

I would simply win the civil war instead of losing

Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don't get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.

I see, so "might makes right" for you then?

I appreciate you making your sense of morality - or lack thereof - so very clear.

Counterpoint: you can have high-quality human contact with people you choose to be around, not so much with people you're paid to be around.