In flat world, there is such a thing as a free launch.

Why not?

After the recent judgments against Meta, it was predicted that there would be a crackdown on mental health topics. DDLC has been connected to a suicide in the UK.

*Screenshot is page 54 of the “Claude Mythos Preview Card”.

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8b8380204f74670be75e81c820ca8dda846ab289.pdf

It’s really only a minority, or else the world would not work. Think how the theory of evolution gained mainstream acceptance, despite resistance by fanatics who had support by society,

More substantial info: https://red.anthropic.com/2026/mythos-preview/

(In case someone has been living under a rock in the last 48 hours. Anthropic’s new model “Mythos” has been finding a lot of new vulnerabilities. This is about patching one.)

Tears of joy, no doubt. No wait. Java…

They are just making it up. It’s just nonsense.

These copyright claims are governed by the DMCA in the US. Platforms like Youtube that allow User Generated Content have a safe harbor provision. They are usually not liable for content that users post. Without that, the internet as we know it would be hard to imagine. But when someone reports a copyright violation, the platform must take it down, or else becomes liable. Then it could be sued for damages, as if the platform had pirated the content.

Posters can submit a DMCA counter-notice. At that point, the copyright owner must either sue the poster, or the content goes back up (within 14 days). It is quite suspicious, that there is no mention of that in the OP.

However, copyright owners have sued Youtube, alleging that they did not do enough to take down pirated content. This did not go so well for Youtube. Eventually they were forced to create “Content ID”. Owners register and upload their content. Youtube continuously scans for that content in videos posted by users. What happens when there is a match depends on the assumed owner. They can choose to have it taken down, or to get the ad money, for example. SNAFUs are pretty common, especially with classical music. It also has no regard for Fair Use, but content owners hate that anyway.

Filing lots of legal cases for harassment is an established tactic (see SLAPP).

Using copyright claims to fleece people is also an established method, or rather several methods. People make fraudulent claims eg on youtube to get the ad money. Or they go a legal route and put a lot of copyrighted material out there, and sue anyone they can (“copyright trolls”).

It would rarely work against the likes of Paramount. Such companies have big bureaucracies to clear the rights. And legal departments to fight in court. Usually, this is about fleecing small companies or individuals, for whom it is cheaper to pay you off, than to go to court.

Anyway, mind that the OP contains legal disinformation. Better get your info from somewhere else.

That made sense at a time when media was physical and could be stopped at the border. There are no border posts in the internet.

So now we could either a) make the copyright industry draw up new licenses that make sense for the internet, or b) make everyone else spend billions to create and suffer border posts in the internet.

Amazingly stupid it may be, but it is also a typical decision. This is how copyright rolls in Europe.

Over the last few years, the media has managed to create this narrative where a few US companies make billions by violating the rights of Europeans and stealing their data. This case was US companies against European data owners. Social media is full of people accounts calling for more law enforcement to fight back. Well, here you go.

So you know where this is going.

Speaking of which. Attie is supposed to enable anyone to create this sort of thing, although Claude Code is way overkill for the examples given.

You misunderstand. They are not exempt at all. F-Droid is exempt from collecting their identities.

The people in these AI hate mobs are generally the opposite of tech-savvy. You’d have to know what weird ideas they have about this.

The For You feed is run by some rando not affiliated with Bluesky. https://bsky.app/profile/spacecowboy17.bsky.social

I doubt it. EU regulations demand all manner of documentation, including who supplied software. Tech companies should also protect users and enforce “our” laws, which means a lot of surveillance.

App stores already have to do developer verification, under the celebrated DMA.

There’s a pro-business loophole meant to keep bureaucracy low. Very small companies are exempted. It’s kind of ironic, because Lemmy usually hates this kind of pro-business anti-regulation thing. To be fair, using this loophole to shield devs, as F-Droid wants, is an abuse. It’s only meant to allow small companies to grow until they have the resources to handle the verification.

These are estimated to cost EUR 12M per unit.

If drones cost EUR 10k - 50k, then you can get over 200 to 1000 units for that money.

Will it be able to stop several hundred drones coming at it?

It will probably be guarding something that’s worth another couple 10M, like a tank platoon.

I’m sure that these will have many good uses. In many cases you can be sure that you won’t be facing huge drone swarms. But for large scale warfare, we really need some new ideas.

Also: This has been in development since 2018 and is still not rolled out. There’s another issue raised in the article.

The better comparison would be the Maginot-line.

It’s not that the Maginot line didn’t work, though new technologies like shaped charges made it more vulnerable. It got by-passed. And it’s not even like that was a sure thing. If the german tank columns had been caught by bombers on those narrow, winding roads through the Ardennes, the offensive might have ended in a massacre. But somehow, they failed to spot huge armies invading their country.

Eventually, what we have is a failure to accept paradigm shifts. They take new technology to make existing tools better. They fail to anticipate and prepare for the changes that new technology means for the way things are done.