Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

---

Read more

Posts

855

Comments

6,402

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

They’re motorized vehicles when its convenient to them and pedestrians when its not

Almost like...they're neither? What you describe here is perfectly legal.

They split lanes

Legal

blow through red lights

Imagine thinking cars don't 🤣

and they loooooove to go out in big groups

Not remotely against the rules

and take over the road

Please define. Because as someone who has spent many hours in a car, I've been prevented from going at the speed I would like to go by other cars far more than bikes. And my life has been put in danger by cars, not by bikes.

The simple fact is that data tells us cyclists and drivers break the law at roughly the same rate at worst. (Incidentally, one study from a place with better infrastructure shows that when good infrastructure is in place, cyclists break the law considerably less often than drivers.) Studies also show that cyclists break the law to keep themselves safe (this has been backed up by multiple studies). When drivers break the law, it's because they think it's more convenient not to bother.

The simple fact is that though @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml claims it's cyclists being "dictators" and you claim they "take over the road", the reality is quite the reverse. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. And no demographic in our society (excluding socioeconomic and racial discussions) is more privileged than drivers.

Yeah it seems pretty unlikely that any AI chat bots are manipulating code in the complex (whether the output is correct or not is immaterial to the complexity of the changes being made) ways that they are that quickly despite actually being done by humans.

V5 was a mess? I'll admit I've only read through the rulebook and watched LA By Night, never actually played it. But I really, really like the system. It feels like it strikes a pretty great balance between an amount of detail that can give you meaningful character choices, while also being really elegant and intuitive to play with. The same thing that made 5e so successful for D&D.

Werewolves have never really interested me, so I never looked much at that. But I quite liked the idea behind Mage so I was looking forward to seeing what they'd do with it, both mechanically and in the metanarrative.

I can't speak for horses. I've only once in my life encountered people on horses while on a bike. It's an exceedingly unusual scenario.

I can tell you that, as a matter of fact (not anecdote), drivers and cyclists break the law at roughly the same rate. But that in crashes between cars and bikes, the car is the responsible party in 80% of cases. And that studies have established that when cyclists break the law, it is overwhelmingly done in the interest of their own safety, while drivers break the law in the interest of perceived convenience.

I only realised after writing the above that that you mentioned "trails". Sounds like you're talking about mountain biking. I can't speak to that, I'm almost exclusively a roadie, using the bike either as a means of transport or for exercise/training on the road. Saying "you" doesn't really work here. The amount of overlap between mountain bikers and road bikers is surprisingly small.

Yes. Cars are the bullies and the dictators. But as the famous saying goes, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Drivers like @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml are pretending that cyclists are the ones being "dictators", merely for existing, because they perceive that existence as a personal slight against them. Drivers feel entitled, and when that entitlement faces even the slightest pushback, they accuse the others of being dictators.

Would you like to try answering the questions?

I'm still waiting for an answer from @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml.

To be clear, at the time I made that comment, every top-level response in this thread had precisely one downvote, apart from two. One had many downvotes ("Most of them"), obviously just not very constructive. The other was this one. It's obviously the result of some troll.

Maybe, but I'd say if they don't know Tank Man, seeing it in this context without further explanation is still unhelpful. Because they're likely to think it's a photo taken in America today.

Huh, fair enough.

Direct link to the actual toot source.

The second image is a bit on the nose IMO. The comparison was clear enough from the original. And yeah maybe some people need it pointed out to them, but I suspect those people are also the ones who will reject the idea regardless.

I am a 38 year old woman

Holy shit that's bad. You're literally more than double the age limit and it still didn't do the right thing. That's beyond even "looks young for their age" territory into just "catastrophic failure of the system". Out of interest though...in your own opinion (or the opinion of people who know you IRL), do you at least look rather young for your age?

That means millions of people will be incorrectly flagged as minors and potentially lose access to entire regions of the internet

And the other way around. You can guarantee there'll be some children who are not supposed to get through the system who nonetheless will do so. And you can also guarantee that these will mostly be non-white, so whatever harms the content that's being blocked is supposed to do will be done predominantly to minority communities.

I've said it before and I will say it every time this comes up. The only acceptable way this system should work is via parental controls. Operating systems should be able to store a user's age, and apps & websites should be able to access that age via an API. Parents should be able to set their child's age in that system and lock it with a password so that the child can't edit it. That removes any possibility that shitty AI will fuck things up for people. It removes any privacy concerns associated with uploading government ID. It literally addresses all the concerns people could have with the system, beyond the very idea of the system itself.

They're saying that cars are bigger and stronger than bikes, which makes them able to bully cars, which makes them feel entitled to do so. Because they then feel entitled to the road, they start calling cyclists "dictators" when they are merely using the road.

It's a shockingly accurate description of behaviour that cyclists face on a daily basis, with drivers threatening their lives for no reason more than that the drivers feel entitled to do so.

Please explain exactly what you mean by "full blown road dictators", and clearly detail how it is different from "use the road in a completely legal manner in ways trying to keep yourself and others from getting run over by the many car drivers with a sense of entitlement to the road".

I don't speak Swedish, so I am relying on machine translation here, which admittedly may be causing issues. However, the machine translated version of that Lawline article looks fairly clear. They are using the a word that most literally translates as "plagiarism", but it carries a meaning that is very clearly closer to copyright infringement.

Kind of like how French "demander" might literally be translated into English as "to demand", but its actual meaning is closer to English "ask". Related, but carrying importantly different connotations.

That's not me staying confidently that you're wrong about Sweden having plagiarism laws, but only that that source does not (if the machine translation is to be believed) prove the point you thought it did.

A good rule of thumb to tell if a law is actually about plagiarism per se (and not copyright infringement) is to ask whether it could apply if you were doing it to Beethoven or Shakespeare. Or even to yourself, because "self-plagiarism" is a thing—you need to cite yourself if you're referencing something you yourself did previously —but "self–copyright infringement" is not.

Another feature of plagiarism is that it is entirely alleviated by clearly citing the source. If you can say "this part of my text came from this source" and avoid the fine, that fine really was plagiarism. If not, it's probably copyright infringement.

argumentations in the swedish judicial system are not written in the impenetrable formal language of anglophone countries and are actually quite simple to parse, since they are not being used as precedence (since sweden is a civil law country rather than common law).

This is fascinating. Personally I'm not a lawyer, just an amateur with a passing interest in the law. I've read a handful of judgments and tend to find them fairly easy to read. Legislation itself can be impenetrable, and references to it can make a judgement difficult to follow (as can references to precedents), but assuming you know the black-letter law, I think most lay people can read a judgement and follow its logic pretty comfortably, even in common law jurisdictions.

But that is still definitely a fascinating hypothesis. It kinda makes me wish I still frequented Reddit, because it reminds me of conversations I've seen and even participated in on /r/auslaw about different legal systems (an interesting one: why America's encoded civil rights in the constitution directly help lead to the activist judicial system they see today, which itself is key to Trump's rising fascism, compared to another common law country where the constitution only lays out more basic, mundane things like how the number of Senators is calculated). I would love to see what more lawyers familiar with either system think about that point you make. It's a very intriguing one.

it is here

Are you absolutely certain? I've seen people claim that before and be wrong, because they were again confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. It could be a translation issue where the law against copyright infringement is sometimes translated as "plagiarism" despite not really fitting the English-language understanding of the difference between the two.

I couldn't find Niuean references to verify it in your case, but my comment was accurate under Australian, UK, Canadian, New Zealand, US, and EU law. It's possible some individual EU countries may differ, but not at the EU level, and certainly not in Slovakia, Germany, or France. So I am confident in using my comment as the general "default" assumption for discussions in English on international forums.

from a legal perspective it's 100% plagiarism.

Plagiarism is not a legal concept. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two circles of a Venn diagram with substantial overlap, but very noteworthy non-overlapping sections too.

Non-AI examples, to avoid any controversy, include that you can plagiarise by taking something from the public domain (e.g. the writing of Shakespeare or the music of Beethoven) and try to pass it off as your own. This would not be copyright infringement because the works belong to the public domain and are thus out of copyright, but it is still plagiarism, because plagiarism is a matter of academic integrity, not law. And you can do copyright infringement without plagiarising. That's what happens every time someone uploads a full movie to YouTube and says "no copyright intended".

Yeah I'm all for pointing out how ludicrous it was to give Obama a Peace prize. But it's ludicrous to somehow pretend the guy currently actively inflaming genocide, aiding a foreign country firing missiles completely unprovoked at another foreign country, and sending residents to concentration camps without even the pretense of due process is somehow more deserving.

Yeah seriously. It's pretty severely missed the point of this thread.

Ironic that it looks like someone came through and downvotes every answer in this thread other than this one, considering. It'd be pretty great if the mods banned whoever that was.

Oh damn. I came here to answer this too, but was definitely not expecting someone else already to have said it.

I do HEMA, which has a healthy overlap with the SCA, but from what I've heard, the SCA has a pretty rigid structure and hierarchy with ranks and titles. I've heard about people winning bouts in SCA fencing against someone who is supposedly ranked higher than them, and getting shunned because of it. That's not healthy.

Huh? How? There's no leadership structure to it to provide that cultish vibe, it's mostly just individuals are small groups of friends doing their thing together.