(I admit, I liked the cloud crowd better.)

good meme

Yes (National park service, documenting the behaviors wolf packs take to avoid overlap, and the conflict that follows if they do)

I imagine that the wolves put nonzero hours into it

good bot

Sorry but such a screencap requires a source. This is almost surely misinformation.

We have 5 review studies. The material to review is mid, but all find essentially no benefit from stretching.

I hedge in the title, because I’d love someone to pull up with a controlled modern trial. Alas, no such luck.

Still weird to me that we don’t have evidence in the other direction! It’s been 20 years

Note these methods are enough to support/detect effects of other safety practices.

Science isn’t certain. We make mistakes. The rule ‘doubt all who hedge’ is how we get the republican party.

I want to reject any +1/+1 boosts, otherwise we don’t block with 15 squirrels. We use 8.

I otherwise like monument as an answer, though I feel like Emrakul should no longer be surprised.

How did the squirrels get flying?!?

Np, search is getting terrible. Thanks for looking!

Source appreciated? Was this inside the research paper?

Just noticing: there’s 0 evidence in article that anyone is doing this. I just don’t buy that this is happening enough to matter. Interesting as interpretability research at best

That’s also precedent, and a template for using on institutions to break copyright. Still seems like good news to me.

Precedent is, in effect, new law and it absolutely does change who gets taken to court and the costs of defending your case. So, depending on which arguments the court accepts, I won’t need fancy lawyer. And it won’t require nearly the risk, creativity, or time that it requires of Meta’s legal reps today. Look at civil rights or environmental protections case law; big profile early cases were horrifically costly, and now compliance by company’s is largely by default.

Horrible people and companies can set good precedent, often without intending to. For example, plenty of criminals set and clarified due process law. So we absolutely could all benefit from Meta’s bad intentions.

We benefit from institutions that will be training their own AI, hosting data publicly, and have the resources to mirror a precedent. Care to cite sources that the arguments being accepted are going to carve out Mark Zuckerberg by name as the one person who can ignore copyright? I haven’t read the fillings, but this should be easy.

I read this as setting precedent that others couldn’t. Court cases like this are one way to make it possible for everyone to break an absurd law.

Worth remembering that any group could make a company. They are work, but not particularly class locked.

It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the ‘newsworthy’ thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis?

It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously.

For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren’t doing something they should?

… Don’t they take a cut of most subs?