Andreas Longva

My point is that I don't see anything resembling a damn good reason. Yet.

I do see very real downsides though

I think this is a false dichotomy. Everything is a risk assessment.

But if you remove copyright laws, you cannot easily roll that change back: by then new derived works will have breached previous copyright laws.

You need a damn good reason, in otherwords

Thanks, I will check it out!

I do much the same on a personal level.

But acting out of optimism is also a privilege: you can afford to take that risk. When discussing sweeping changes that have a tremendous impact on people's livelihoods, we cannot simply try and see if it works...

Could you perhaps elaborate why this is important to you? I don't quite understand the motivation.

Or, that is, the examples I can think of are still not enough to offset the harm that may come from it in my mind, so I think there might be more to it than that.

Because of the same problems as removing copyright. If you can just slightly tweak someone else's work and do whatever you want with it, then it's no different than removing copyright altogether

Why should there be the right to create derived works?

That's a good point, but I still think that's not something to solve by weakening copyright itself, but instead improving access by other means

Though, I agree that maybe weakening the copyright system in certain fields might be a good idea. For example, while open access applies to new papers, there's a lot of old science books that are out of print that would benefit the world if they were not bound by copyright.

I am not convinced, but I will think about it. In particular, I don't actually think that the "overall problem that is copyright" is a problem of copyright itself. The examples I've seen so far are best solved by other means.

...

I would never support tearing down legal protections for artists to maintain ownership of their work so that software devs can obtain ISO standards for free...

Sure, but this isn't a problem with the copyright system itself, it's a remnant of the old days when papers had to be published in physical journals.

Most fields are already transitioning to Open Access licensing. This works fine within the copyright system.

Open source software and the book market are very different, I don't agree you can transfer experiences.

And besides, breaching licenses is legally problematic, and the last thing OS devs want is legal trouble. If there was no copyright, things might look very different

What kind of innovation is it that you want that could possibly be worth these trade offs?

Without copyright you wouldn't even necessarily know who the original author is. The consumers might not know they are copies.

Maybe not every book will be republished, but it would be individually catastrophic for the authors who fall victim to this.

...

5 years! You write a book and someone can copy it after 5 years?

Maybe for some narrow industries that makes sense, but it would be utterly destructive to human artistry IMO

I see, that makes sense, I misinterpreted your first post as a suggestion to remove it altogether.

Yeah, I agree 70 years seems excessive, and afaik is a result of Disney lobbying hard for it?

Re-reading your post I realized you might suggest not removing copyright altogether but reworking the system. But the copyright system appears very straightforward to me, and it's unclear to me what you could do to substantially improve upon it. Do you have ideas?

Innovation is not the only metric that matters.

Can you imagine being a writer dedicating years of your life writing a book, only for someone else to blatantly copy it and sell it as their own, and then having no legal protections against this behavior?

The patent systems need reworking though

Thanks, I'll check it out

Yeah, between this and Gaza, the West has largely squandered its credibility... It's a disgrace and it's embarrassing to see our leaders bow down to this bully, for fear of tariff retaliation

We've seen how to define and apply Monte Carlo integration, but there's a whole world of techniques for reducing variance.
Part five (thenumb.at/QMC) covers Quasi-Monte Carlo: negative correlation, stratified and adaptive sampling, and low-discrepancy sequences.

It's a shame they were published so close, it would have been interesting to see a discussion of related work including this *negative* finding in the present paper

It feels so improbable that accidents are still comparatively rare given all the near-accidents I witness all the time.

Love biking though!

I swear there's something about sitting on a bike that makes almost everyone a moron. Every time I'm out walking I see people biking at full speed around a corner with zero visibility (90% of bikers do this outside my house), or going full speed 20 cm away from my daughter (who's 4)

...

AI/ML research in medicine often uses a large amounts of variables but relatively few patients in comparison. I can't help but think that whatever they find might just be coincidental. In a high dim space you can easily fit a wide range of observations.

This paper seems to confirm this notion

Yes! Loved the books but I've never been the type to demand TV/movie adaptations to stay as close as possible to the source. I think it's a good opportunity to do something a little different.

That reminds me I should subscribe to Apple again to catch the latest season...

Missed the chance to point out that that particular distance measure (l1 norm) is also called the Manhattan distance!

Named after Stavros Manhattan.

(Just kidding, this time it's actually the city.)

An unbearably sad statement from the Editorial Committee (SDJ) of the AFP news agency, please read:

"Without immediate intervention, the last reporters in Gaza will die.
AFP has been working with 1 writer, 3 photographers and 6 videographers, all freelance, in the Gaza Strip… /1

For what it's worth, I'm a human (promise) and I'd love to read what you write!