Perhaps worth noting, there was a SCOTUS decision in the early 2000s (New York Times Co. v. Tasini) that held that freelance journalists whose contracts did not specifically include an electronic distribution clause were entitled to damages when those articles were subsequently released on the web and to electronic news services like Lexis/Nexis.

Big publications like the NYT came to settlements that allowed them to pay to redistribute the older articles (by paying the original authors), but smaller publications may not have such a settlement structure in place and may not be allowed to redistribute the original articles without additional permissions.

FYI, I have a copy of the Dragon Magazine Archive CD-ROM version that came out in 2001… only to immediately disappear off the market for this very reason!

Corn chips are no place for a mighty warrior

(whispers) … Harambe …

This is why customer service folks often keep a mirror by the phone, looking at their own faces helps to keep their emotions in check when dealing with a difficult customer.

“This MIT-trained engineer left a big plumbing company so he could disrupt the market with an innovative product”

I wonder if they still make that shampoo I like?

SNL’s 2 A-Holes

Fundamentally, it’s the same issue that affected the Stanford Prison Experiment & the Milgram experiment. You can’t claim that the subjects naturally developed certain behaviors, if they were being prompted or saw through the prompts.

Since Sherif proved himself to be untrustworthy after the first experiment failed to provide the results he was looking for, we can’t really trust that any of the conditions of the conflict between the campers arose from the campers themselves.

Robbers Cave has been debunked. Short version:

Muzafer Sherif’s first experiment (“Middle Grove”) failed when the two groups worked together to figure out that they were being manipulated. The second experiment (“Robbers Cave”) was only apparently successful because the “camp counselors” were explicitly aiding and abetting the feud between the two groups.

Of course, Sherif didn’t mention these details when he publicized his results.

He’s got radioactive nuts.

Where did he get a squirrel-sized spider costume?

Did Squirrel Girl make it for him? DID SHE ALREADY HAVE ONE JUST IN CASE?

laughs in California

You stop explaining and apologizing.

“We need better training data for our AIs. Let’s introduce some random scramble into search results, and when users have to hunt through the list and pick what they actually wanted instead of the top result, we can use those data to train the AI how to respond to those words when they come up in AI prompts.”

– a Google exec, probably?

I also wonder how much a certain sponsor influence the video topic

Literally anything can influence the creator. I watch Max Miller’s Tasting History, and he’s unrepentant that he chooses certain foods to go with wine or coffee from his sponsors. But, he also makes entertaining history pieces to go with it, and that’s what I’m there for.

Jon Townsend will happily sell you reproduction kitchen equipment from his own store, which is heavily featured in the videos.

At the end of the day, creators have to get paid somehow. Sure, some creators are doing it for free because they have a day job, or whatever, but even then you can be pretty sure they won’t do anything to jeopardize their paycheck.

I think the most we can hope for is that creators tell us when they are are influenced by advertising.

Oh, this is beyond meat, I assure you.

“We wouldn’t have to kill so many civilians if the criminals would stop committing crimes.”

Try ChatGPT instead of MultiVac

Gotta feed 'em something.

Can u get pregante?