Nothing works like the truth, if the US could just stop being so racist it'd be that much harder to divide us. It seems like that's fundementally against our nature though.
1. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/30/560042987/russians-targeted-u...
2. https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/german-leaflet-for-black...
That is completely nonsense. Absolutely ludicrous.
Neither Russia nor China are homogenous. Both have large Muslim minorities (and both are be pretty racist against them). Eastern Russians are not European descended and are looked down on by Western Russians. Tibetans are not Han Chinese.
Even the Asian nations that actually are pretty "homogenous" like Japan and Korea are also famously pretty racist.
They're both the remnants of large land empires, each incorporating many ethnicities, languages, religions... They are not at all homogenous.
Like, that whole thing with the Uyghurs, what did you think that was about? Or Chechnya?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Poster_Art_Centre
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g308272-d18871...
If you really don't trust it, copy the algorithms without forking it. That's the big allure of OSS. You should be scutinous, but you should be able to base that scrutiny on cold hard facts.
relevant: https://web.archive.org/web/20130208124604/https://www.popeh...
The moment the government wants to punish someone over this they will grab some random kid that's barely done anything and threaten them with the full 20 years to serve as an example to others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records%2C_Inc._v._Tho...
Source? My impression is that in basically all of those cases, it's either because:
1. the guy is a repeat offender and/or on probation
2. the guy decided to wanted to fight to the bitter end and they threw the book at them
I'm not saying either are justified, but the implication that someone will get 20 years just because he downloaded deepseek through ollama or whatever is still false.
“It was for two or three quarter ounces of weed!” isn’t the defense you imagine.
(The graphs in the first tweet are from page 55 of the linked PDF.)
Which isn't applicable to the law being proposed. Moreover if the idea is "threaten them with the full 20 years to serve as an example", then the mandatory minimum kinda works against that? If you catch some guy and then he serves 10 years, you haven't really proven much. You're just acting in line with expectations.
1. The RIAA sent a letter telling how many songs you were distributing and offering a settlement of around $2-5 per song. Most people at this point realized that they were in fact guilty and that the RIAA had enough evidence to prove it in court and agreed to settle.
2. A small fraction ignored this or refused to settle. The RIAA then files lawsuits in some of those cases, typically over a small number of the songs that the person was distributing rather than over all the songs being distributed.
At this point most defendants would get a lawyer and be told that they will almost certainly lose and advised to settle.
3. A handful of people ignored their lawyers (or had crappy lawyers) and plowed on. Their extraordinarily bad decision making often continued during their trial. Thomas for instance lied in court and tried to destroy evidence.
This is not wise since in these suits the plaintiff is asking for statutory damages, which is a minimum of $750 per song (not per download--if you were offering 2 songs for download and they were each download 1000 times the minimum is 2 x $750, not 2000 x $750) but can go up to $30000, and it is the jury that determines the amount in that range. You really want the jury to find you sympathetic, and lying and trying to destroy evidence doesn't help with that.
4. After the inevitable victory in most cases that got far the RIAA would again offer to settle for an amount much lower than the damages awarded by the court, although higher than their original settlement offer.
I don't know how many reached this stage, but if many did most of them came to their senses and realized that appealing would probably only make it worse.
The very small number that didn't are the ones that ended up like the two cases you cited.
>During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison if Swartz pled guilty to 13 federal crimes. Swartz and his lead attorney rejected the deal, opting instead for a trial where prosecutors would be forced to justify their pursuit of him.
I'm not sure how you got that impression from the original exchange of:
>>[...] You get less jail time for committing 34 felonies.
>up to 20 years. Realistically some kid downloading a model would get probation [...]
Seems I was right in that inference, given other responses to the thread since.
Lawfare was tried, and it failed. I hope it dies the death it deserves instead of becoming the new normal.
It’s possible to support Harris and still be reasonable about the utter failure that the lawfare campaign against Trump has been.
We have a deeper societal perception to fix first before we can even think about a justice system focused on rehabilitation. It'd also be nice to remove that certain clause in the 13th amendment while we're at it.
You get less jail time for committing 34 felonies.