I probably said it too dramatically, the kinds of people that need to hear it will just knee-jerk dismiss me, but seriously think about the phrase “normal names are required for the functioning of society”. What a wild-ass thing to say. Required why? Is society really that fragile? Sounds like maybe it should be replaced by something that can handle the occasional mildly spicy letter. Mine isn’t even that spicy, it’s like whole-egg-mayo levels of spice.
No they’re not. They’re required for us to be catalogued and managed by a state, to our detriment and the enrichment of the ruling class.
“Normality” is a fucking scam that keeps your imagination in check, so you never look outside your assigned box and realise you don’t have to belong to anyone.
You have no idea how much genocidal violence has been done to condition our society to accept a dystopic phrase like “normal names are required for the functioning of society”.
Your mind has been caged.
As someone with a very mildly unusual name, I can tell you that it doesn’t matter whether a system could or could not meaningfully represent the name. Often the people or systems just refuse to acknowledge any deviation from what’s expected. Sometimes databases are written to enforce arbitrary grammatical rules that make my name impossible to write, or the people using the systems will just “correct” the “error” without telling me. I don’t mind that much but our normative systems just love to homogenise us.
Ah, that’s why it’s a bunch of symbols that make no sense, thanks for the clarification.
Wait did you edit this image? That’s some effort you’ve put in.
You’re just repeating the justification for patents with zero skepticism and apparently no awareness of how they actually get used.
Hell, I said the following to you a day before you made this comment, and you haven’t replied. Are you happy to just ignore the counter arguments then?
Edit: the fact both this comment and the other one just got downvoted with no reply would indicate they are in fact not interested.
I don’t see it that way. The systems we have in place now are the alternative to just sharing. The secret-keeping monopolistic behaviour of capitalists is preserved by things like the patent system, because they lend the appearance of legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
If you want to see the horror of the patent system, you juat have to look at the millions it killed in the pandemic.
The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.
Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn’t manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.
These companies were funded to do it. There’s no way they wouldn’t have worked on the vaccine otherwise. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they’re forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn’t need patents for it, just the will.
I don’t see it that way. The systems we have in place now are the alternative to just sharing. The secret-keeping monopolistic behaviour of capitalists is preserved by things like the patent system, because they lend the appearance of legitimacy to an illegitimate system.
If you want to see the horror of the patent system, you juat have to look at the millions it killed in the pandemic.
The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.
Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn’t manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.
These companies were funded to do it. There’s no way they wouldn’t have worked on the vaccine otherwise. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they’re forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn’t need patents for it, just the will.
Also, what does it mean to “tolerate” the existence of minorities? What exactly are we “tolerating”? Tolerance in every other context means to accept deviation from a standard or some negative outcome.
Framing anyone’s mere existence as a thing to be “tolerated” is to imply they are deviant or negative.
That’s where the paradox of tolerance loses me. I don’t think we should be tolerant in general. I think we should make value judgements about what is good or bad and act accordingly. Every society does this, and pretending we’re above it all and completely neutral is dishonest.
And if the “tolerance” is of differing views, diversity of thought is also good, not a bad thing to be tolerated.
It’s simple: we identify behaviour that is bad, like bigotry and hatred, and we say no. We’re not rejecting it because it’s merely different, and to accept that framing is to accept the cry-bullying of fascists. We reject them because they suck, and we don’t owe them shit about it.
More or less what I was going to say. The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.
Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn’t manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.
These companies were funded to do it. There’s no way they wouldn’t have worked on the vaccine. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they’re forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn’t need patents for it, just the will.
And we would be free to reverse engineer and lift their stuff without people defending their right restrict us because otherwise they wouldn’t make it.
The vast majority of serious innovation - not just incremental improvements like this patent represents - is done on public resources, not private. The patent system allows corporations to swoop in, monopolise the patents and keep us from free access to knowledge.
It’s so predictable too. Did someone do something indefensible and you don’t want to face up to it? Try blaming the victim today! Ask your propagandist if victim blaming is right for you.
The point being made in the video is that the second patent doesn’t correctly reference the prior art - the numbers are wrong - and it is not substantially different. The patent office didn’t do their due diligence.
As for the first, it’s not just code or the staggered idea. There is quantitative research that determines a specific and non-obvious methodology. (Edit: that’s my opinion, but it would be subject to interpretation whether something is obvious - I could easily be wrong)
The video critcises that patent for being overly broad, but there’s no need to attack it because it’s expired anyway. If you want to, here’s the specific link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5653925A/en
My broader critique of patents isn’t that they fail to stand up to their own rules - although they frequently do - but that the law itself runs counter to innovation.
If you’re saying this one is obvious, there is maths and research involved, not just "hey lay it down like this.
The basic concept is easy, the implementation details are not.
Yeah, it seems like it’s the fear of legal action that’s stopping them, but this information might change that.
Also, I mean “bad patent” according to the standards of patents themselves. I don’t actually think patents are good for anything.
If the judge said it then it would have been established fact in the case. This can be established by evidence and found as fact in the case, or it can be part of the agreed facts of the case, in which case the court doesn’t waste time hearing evidence. All it takes to become agreed fact is for the defence to present it as part of their case and for the prosecution to not dispute it.
In that context the finding of fact by the court is more than enough for the paper to report on it, and the two versions presented by you of it being said by the defence and by the judge, are entirely compatible with one another. Nobody is going to demand to see the boy’s medical history to verify an uncontroversial point like this. That would just be a waste of time.
The papers presented it as stated by the defence and the judge, they said nothing false or misleading, and I don’t see any problem with that part of their reporting.
Now, if you have an issue that it was reported because it casts autistic people in a bad light, the issue becomes whether you think it’s something the papers should leave out. Well, the defence considered it important, and it became news. Not much we can do about that after the fact.
On lemmy I’ve been accused so many times of reverse-racism and reverse-sexism, where advocating for minorities brings out the trolls who want to muddy the waters and claim that noticing bigotry is the real bigotry actually, and they had big vote pile-ons to go with those comments.
This is largely from big instances with open sign-up. I assume lemmy attracts the right wing trolls who tend to get banned from other places, which is one downside of being a viable alternative that isn’t yet mainstream. Also I’m sure they target this place because it is generally left-leaning.
Because the decision of which politics is disallowed is a political discussion, and those people will bring their politics of bigotry to the table and argue that “no politics day” means minorities should be silenced.
Uh oh, you got politics in your no politics.
That’s a beautiful name.