> In my naive take, authors get to decide how their work is used, not scrapers.
Inasmuch as they've put it on the public web they've already made a decision on who gets to see it, and you really can't stop people from doing what they want with it on a personal level.
If that's print it out and put it on a wall in my house, or use whatever tools I have at my disposal to consume it in any way I please, there's not really anything the author can do about it.
Copyright law says otherwise. As for enforcing the law, you're right, it may be difficult for individual authors to move the needle. But that that doesn't mean it's ok for scrapers to violate the law.
As to what constitutes fair use, that's a whole other story: some scraping may be found to be legal while others may not. Benefiting monetarily from legally dubious scraping only makes that scraping look more infringe-y. Of course, nothing is settled law until a court decides.
How is that difference meaningful? What actions are you going to take differently at 95% cloud coverage vs 100%? I can't think of anything I'd do differently if I was expecting 100% cloud coverage tomorrow to wake up and find that it was actually at 95%.
Yeah, and I’d argue that if the difference is meaningful to you, then you probably want something more accurate than what a consumer-grade weather service can provide. So it would be borderline irresponsible of Apple to even give you the false confidence of some precise measurement of cloud cover.
> People below a certain intelligence level almost have a deliberate culture of ignorance (at least in America) - e.g. being proud of not having critical thinking skills and berating others for sounding smart.
You've conveniently not stated what you to believe that threshold to be, and likely no evidence exists to support your hypothesis so I'm not even going to ask for it.
Not understanding an idiom is something you should just discuss with ChatGPT, it'll set you straight, show you the ropes, right your ship, and whatnot.
I very much doubt that. This as a phase doesn't even seem to exist online till today, even much less as an idiom,
telling me the equivalent of "just google" for someone specific's thinking is entirely unhelpful.
I wasn't interested in what ChatGPT can hallucinate or even output. I was after Voloskaya's context, Voloskaya would be the one to provide this insight, which is who I chose to ask for that.
Bike shedding is bike shedding because the color we paint the bike shed at the nuclear power plant doesn't matter. If people can't use your scroll-jacked website to even learn about your product, that matters.
I just bought a fish tank off some guy on Craigslist a week ago, since I don't have a Facebook account to use Marketplace. He told me it was in good condition, and the pics looked ok but were from kind of far back and it was full of crap. I drive 45 min to get it and the thing is horrendously scratched up on the inside because he used it for turtles and then storage.
Falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy, since I drove all that way, I took it off his hands for 25% less than we initially agreed.
I did something similar with an Aeron chair on Facebook Marketplace recently. Drove around an hour to the next city over to take a look at one, apparently the good ones had been picked over already (and he only posted photos of one out of the batch, presumably the best), but I felt a little obligated to buy something since I'd taken the person's time and driven all that way.
After cleaning it up at home, it ended up being usable for now, but definitely felt crappy driving back with it knowing I wasn't really happy with it.
I tried buying a truck. Every seller would say "totally rust free!!111" and promise there wasn't a dot of rust. I'd get there and practically every time I managed to push a finger or a fist through a panel.
You're asking for citations when your whole premise is based on a wet potato getting stuck in a smooth plastic pipe. And then the potato being a durable enough seal to create a bomb. That's goofy as hell.
No. I’m asking for citations when your assertion is that flammable hydrocarbons mixed with oxygen in an enclosed container and ignited can not exceed 30-40 psi, or the bursting force of said (often brittle) plastic enclosed container. Especially since garden variety Schedule 40 PVC in the sizes we’re talking about are rated (non-shock) for over 180 PSI and many into the 200+ PSI range but there are easy to find videos of them bursting in spud guns.
And as noted in the prior declassified paper, shock fronts from these mixtures can easily move in excess of 280 meters/second even unconfined in air, with the right mixes.
Goofy? Perhaps.
Life altering? Perhaps [https://youtu.be/KqstP9ics2A?si=Omtp8N7xPW91A5TU] - and yes, while many of those failures in the video are clearly due to improper glued joints (which is a big hint at the pressures involved, and way better than other kinds of failures!), many also involve the PVC shattering. Several in the first few minutes, actually.
I made a ton of potato guns as a kid, btw. Typically using propane. But I always respected the forces involved, because I wanted to not lose an eye, kill anyone, etc.
Looks like some enterprising MIT alumni + the air force academy did some internal ballistics reseaerch [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0966].
Note - I highly recommend against using acetylene, which they did for some of the tests, as it will perform a proper super-sonic detonation [https://www.icheme.org/media/10611/iv-paper-08.pdf] under the right conditions and turn your potato cannon into an IED even if the projectile moves, or potentially even with no projectile at all. Per that paper - “It appears that Acetylene is unique in that it will propagate a detonation at initial pressures below those of which it is capable of sustaining deflagration”. I would have checked this paper which even more directly addresses the topic [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02671917] (because I love this kind of thing, obviously), but $40. :(
So looks like as long as everything goes well, they are in the approximate range of 20 psi while driving the projectile, except for acetylene which hit a hair under 90 psi. They used stoichiometrically ‘perfect’ mixes.
My guess is the failures in the videos (and anecdotally) were driven by too lean fuel mixtures, easy to do in some conditions. But this paper [https://www.scientificbulletin.upb.ro/rev_docs_arhiva/full14...] seems to indicate the opposite, and also pressures >= 120 PSI. So I don’t know.
I also saw MAPP gas apparently being used in one of them too (the yellow cylinder attached to a plumbing torch), which would also be unwise.
Best my pals and I ever did was engine starter fluid and like 40PSI of air with a duct tape diaphragm to hold the air in. We shot old D batteries wrapped in duct tape out of it. Shot it at a stop sign once and it made a perfect hole with sign peeled back like shooting BB guns at a coke can. The whole thing was stupidly dangerous.
Inasmuch as they've put it on the public web they've already made a decision on who gets to see it, and you really can't stop people from doing what they want with it on a personal level.
If that's print it out and put it on a wall in my house, or use whatever tools I have at my disposal to consume it in any way I please, there's not really anything the author can do about it.
reply