I am professional who used python, Java in my Career, and TypeScript is simply the best.
“Too many people only learn JavaScript, become psychological dependent o it “ is simply a false narrative from people who are stuck with obsolete web dev tech stack and refuse to learn better tools
Making an argument that even the person who was supposedly fired for poor performance was STILL able to find what she found with almost zero effort on her behalf isn’t the compelling argument you seem to imagine it to be.
A data scientist fired for poor performance because she didn't perform some perfunctory tasks while she dedicated herself to investigating and uncovering all these fake bots.
Let me give you some more context rather than this shitty throwaway cynicism. This is an issue that the employee thought was important enough to share that she had to give up almost $70k in severance. https://twitter.com/szhang_ds/status/1381518041737949185?s=2...
It's only a problem if citizens are somehow influenced by the # of Facebook likes a politician gets.
Those who'd hold Facebook to account for not programmatically 'fixing' this would do well to also acknowledge the underlying human failings that make these shady strategies allegedly effective.
Maybe even a small attempt to improve voter literacy in Honduras?
Easier to just shift the entire moral blame to FB and implicitly hope every similar social media company acquiesces to your worldview forever.
“As a result, we’ve taken down more than 100 networks of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Around half of them were domestic networks that operated in countries around the world, including those in Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and in the Asia Pacific region.”
I think all entry names in encyclopaedia would fall under collection of facts that is not copyrightable... Same goes for recipes. I don't see how list of words existing and being used would qualify as work under USA copy-right. The entries themselves though are likely in many cases protected, but likely not all.
Certainly, the fact that competing encyclopedias exist, and have for hundreds of years, with > 99% identical entry names (but of course, substantively different content), and that predicated not on any given invention or IP but rather the common use English language, would, I think, make the judges rather reluctant to rule differently even should there be 100% match in entries.
Two distinctions come to mind: the encyclopedia text doesn't have a "functional purpose" in the same way as the implementation of an API does, and thus there isn't a market of users who have pre-existing skills with encyclopedia entries that they could put to use if the entries were copied to another platform. In my non-lawyerly reading of the first bit of the decision it seemed they leaned on those aspects quite a bit.
Probably not? The crux of the opinion seems to grant fair use because it enabled a "new and transformative use," which is a box that a different line of encyclopedias doesn't seem to check.
