1 - Get Recalbox on a GPi Case 2 and you'll have access to just about every system from before 2000 (including support for commodore and other similar systems). It can handle PSP games as well, but not PS2 or NDS. There are other cases available for a raspberry pi system, but I recommend the GPi Case 2 because you can play it "docked" and handheld. I recommend Recalbox since it already has a lot of support for the GPi case built into it, but if you're tech-savvy you may prefer Lakka for its flexibility. You may be able to get more modern emulators to run on the lakka as well.

2 - Gaming PC with Lakka, Citra, or whatever other emulators you'd like. And unless you're playing a lot of super new games, you don't need anything fancy- you could probably just throw windows 7 on a $100 refurbished business PC and run just about any game from 2010 or earlier, TBH.

3 - Wii or Wii U. I personally find emulation of these (specifically with a wii-mote) to be a bit finicky. If you don't use a Wii, you can substitute your personal console of choice for this one.

4 - Oculus Quest- though I'm not sure if it counts since you aren't connecting to a TV. This isn't the best VR headset but it is the cheapest. It has a good library of standalone games, and for anything else you can use airlink or the virtual desktop to run games off of a VR-ready PC (If you went with one that was beefy for #2). The quest has a lot of modding support through the sidequest. The main concern with this is that you need a phone to set up a Quest when you buy it/after a factory reset. So if Facebook goes under or a meteor hits silicon valley, this could conceivably turn into a fancy paperweight. To my knowledge, nobody has cracked the Quest to skip over this step. If historical preservation is more important to you than money, I would recommend choosing literally any other VR headset because of the setup thing.

I think the main difference between derivative/inspired works created by humans and those created by AI is the presence of "creative effort." This is something that humans can do, but narrow AI cannot.

Even bland statements humans make about nonfiction facts have some creativity in them, even if the ideas are non-copyrightable (e.g., I cannot copyright the fact that the declaration of independence was signed in 1776. However, the exact way I present this fact can be copyrightable- a timeline, chart, table, passage of text, etc. could all be copyrightable).

"Creative effort" is a hard thing to pin down, since "effort" alone does not qualify (e.g., I can't copyright a phone directory even if I spent a lot of effort collecting names/numbers, since simply putting names and numbers alongside each other in alphabetical isn't particularly creative or original). I don't think there's really a bright line test for what constitutes as "creative," but it doesn't take a lot. Randomness doesn't qualify either (e.g., I can't just pick a random stone out of a stream and declare copyright on it, even if it's a very unique-looking rock).

Narrow AI is ultimately just a very complex algorithm created based on training data. This is oversimplifying a lot of steps involved, but there isn't anything "creative" or "subjective" involved in how an LLM creates passages of text. At most, I think you could say that the developers of the AI have copyright over the initial code used to make that AI. I think that the outputs of some functional AI could be copyrightable by its developers, but I don't think any machine-learning AI would really qualify if it's the sole source of the work.

Personally, I think that the results of what an AI like Midjourney or ChatGPT creates would fall under public domain. Most of the time, it's removed enough from the source material that it's not really derivative anymore. However, I think if someone were to prompt one of these AI to create a work that explicitly mimics that of an author or artist, that could be infringement.

IANAL, this is just one random internet user's opinion.

This is true, and I'm not against "alternative" sources for ebooks (having used them myself), but it's always better for the libraries and authors if there's foot traffic to the libraries, since that drives tax dollars which in turn makes its way back to the authors. It's less than pennies on the dollar, but it's important.

I think it's important to provide children with a variety of potential careers ;)

Because everyone knows if a 14 year old reads Nora Roberts (or that one penguin children's book) society will fall apart.

Because everyone knows if a 17 year old reads Nora Roberts (or that one penguin children's book) society will fall apart.

You seem to be stretching the definition of the "paradox of tolerance" in new and amazing ways. How exactly does the "paradox of tolerance" relate to defederating from instances that haven't explicitly blocked Threads?

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most of the activity on any given instance or community comes from outside of the instance. If you start cutting off instances because they are sharing their own stuff with Meta, then you will also be negatively impacting your own communities since the amount of active users will go down.

Most users won't react to something like this by joining your instance or an instance that you approve of (or, at least, currently approve of). They'll either find another community on an instance they're federated with or they'll switch to another social media platform. The latter becomes more likely depending on how many instances end up on either "side" of the issue. Although most user accounts are relatively new, it's still a pain to switch over to something else once you've gotten used to something.

The scale of defederation you propose, especially this early in the fediverse, would be enough to turn off a lot of folks from federation. If admins are just going to defederate from each other at the first sign of disagreement, that weakens my faith in the fediverse.

I absolutely believe that instances should not federate with meta's stuff. The largest servers had enough issues when we were getting new users in the thousands. Meta will likely bring in users in the millions. However, it makes no difference to me if another instance federates with Meta.

I'm morbidly curious if I'll see the melting of the north pole in my lifetime

This is a fair take. However, stories in games (for the most part) are no different than cheap pulp novels, romance fics, or the twenty billion christmas romance movies: you know what you're getting and it's not super in-depth. Sometimes I do want to turn my brain off for a story. I won't pretend it's good, but I still enjoy it.

USA has been doing this since the cold War. Business as usual, but still important to keep track of

In fairness, privacy issues have been a bit like a "frog in boiling water". Unless you pay a lot of attention to these things or are completely out of the loop, the average person won't see the issue.

At least my grandmother's vindicated now for not wanting to get on Facebook and share those sorts of things

If we're going really old school, then Space Invaders. Its way of leveraging the hardware at the time to make the enemies and music speed up after you defeat more of them is elegant. Back then, the more things a game had on screen, the slower it ran. So, destroying more enemies removes more things from the screen, causing both enemies and music to speed up.

This is something that's taken for granted today, but I think at the time, it was genius.

I wonder if this will go differently from Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ChatGPT likely qualifies as "transformative", but I'm uncertain if it qualifies as a "public service" or not given that it has a paid tier. How privacy/personal information ties into this should also be interesting.

I imagine a lot of that is due to issues with liability. If a journalist says "X did Y", that opens them up to lawsuits. If they say "A alleges that X did Y", then that allows them to report without fear of a lawsuit.

The end of the article did talk about who may have sent them out there.

Two of the survivors said Greek authorities had asked them, through interpreters and lawyers, to give evidence against the nine Egyptians who have been accused of people trafficking.

But all four survivors said the nine Egyptians were passengers, seated among them on the journey. They say the ship's crew were masked and spent most of their time in the cabin.

"The crew jumped in the water when the coastguard approached and some of these nine Egyptians tried to sail the boat," one of them told us. "It seems to me they are not the ones involved in people smuggling," he added.

Relatives of Egyptians who fear their loved ones were on board have told the BBC that they paid $4,500 (£3,500) each for the journey.

Just what we need- crypto bros with a white savior complex

Yeah, I'm glad at least a few YouTubers are starting to mirror content on sites like Odysee though (Such as Louis Rossman). I think that, like Lemmy, it just needs to reach a critical mass of users before it's viable

Good Wired article on this (in case you are somehow out-of-the-loop): https://www.wired.com/story/reddit-api-changes-ai-labor/

If you're learning a language, netflix has good tie-ins with language reactor... but if the $9.99 option goes away, I'll just switch to the beta video + subtitle file upload for that

I kind of hate that you're right