Yes, only if you actually use it. But the question was: How will they prove that I have any social media history? the premise being that one can deny the existence of any history while actually using social media. Age verification will make this increasingly difficult and risky. If you use social media and deny it and they can prove you lied about using it, there will be consequences.
Have you heard about ‘age verification’ to ‘protect the children’? You too will be age verified. They will know all your accounts. That’s the whole point of age verification. It is to eliminate anonymity.
I did a little more searching with similar conclusion: most of what’s available is pretty extremely biased and unreliable. But it does seem there may be a connection beyond the vaccine he created being manufactured by Merck.
This CBS News article from 2008 says:
Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children’s Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
That appears to be a quote from a Couric & Co Blog entry but that is “the official blog of the CBS Evening News”, so I guess CBS is quoting themselves and the information is as reliable as CBS. Unfortunately the linked blog entry no longer exists.
Offit is the current Chairholder of the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology according to UPENN website. I guess that’s a reliable source. CBS didn’t name the chair funded by Merck but the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology was established by Merck, according to UPENN.
On the other hand this UPMC Center for Continuing Education in the Health Sciences CME Information Sheet, which lists Offit as a speaker, says:
No members of the planning committee, speakers, presenters, authors, content reviewers and/or anyone else in a position to control the content of this education activity have relevant financial relationships with any entity producing, marketing, re-selling, or distributing health care goods or services, used on, or consumed by, patients to disclose.
I don’t see anything about ongoing funding of the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology by Merck. Only that Merck established it (presumably providing some endowment), and the possibly related report by CBS. Maybe $1.5million was the initial endowment.
B8B - Business ate business.
Is there any truth to the allegation that Dr Paul Offit received $1.5million from Merck? I don’t see any disclosure of such conflict of interest in the The Guardian article but it comes up when I search for information about him.
You know it’s only a matter of time until computers are ‘sold’ by subscription.
MEPs insist that age assurance systems must be accurate and preserve minors’ privacy
The EU, where War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength and Surveillance is Privacy.
Can they be made into finished lumber in Canada at a cost that would allow them to sell for a profit into export markets? What would it take to achieve this?
This makes me think of Don’t Talk to the Police
Google can read your emails whether you opt out or not.
Canada’s next. Or maybe Greenland.
Is it disabled in hardware, firmware or software? Does Linux enable it?
It’s an interesting article but it seems to me that when it comes to opposing abuse of power, free communication is more fundamental than free software. Without sufficiently free communication, free software is practically unavailable and for many purposes (anything that involves communication with others) it is unusable. Without sufficiently free means of communication, the fediverse will cease to exist. Access to and use of the Internet is increasingly regulated.
According to Are Song Lyrics Copyrighted? How the Law Works, unless their use is ‘fair use’ or they have a license, then they are violating copyright, if I understand the article correctly. I believe that site explains laws in the United States. It probably varies somewhat by jurisdiction, so I expect it would depend on who owns the website and where they are based.
Is ChatGPT a legal entity competent to violate copyright law? I don’t think that’s likely.
I do think OpenAI violated copyright law by copying song lyrics and other media to use them as input to their LLM systems, to embed the essence of them into their LLMs for commercial benefit. Judging by the valuations of the companies that do not yet have significant income compared to the investments, on the face of it, the IP they copied, often without license, as far as I know, is fantastically valuable.
He’s a bit late. It already is a bubble. All everyone can do at this point is maybe influence if, when and how it bursts or deflates.
SpaceX fans quickly began calling for a rescue mission.
I don’t see evidence in the article of anyone calling on them (SpaceX and Musk) for a rescue: not even the anonymous fans. There is only the unsubstantiated claim. And I don’t see even a claim that anyone other than the alleged anonymous fans are calling on them.
It is possible that Nexperia breached some conditions of the purchase but the statement of the Dutch Government doesn’t indicate any such conditions existed or that they were breached. The only justification seems to be “serious governance shortcomings and actions within Nexperia”, and their concern that Nexperia might not continue to provide goods and services in the country the way the government wants. I don’t see any indication that Nexperia had an obligation to do so under the terms of the purchase by WingTech in 2018.
To be fair, much of the media and even the Dutch government is accusing or suggesting WingTech is doing something illegal: that they don’t have the right to do as they wish with the intellectual property of the company they purchased, including giving it to others, if they wish. It’s not surprising that many people end up with the impression that WingTech has done something nefarious.
And it’s not that moving production out of the UK or the Netherlands isn’t an adverse outcome for those countries. But they (at least the previous owners) did receive billions of dollars and they shouldn’t expect to be able to sell the company for financial benefit and maintain control of it, unless that control was part of the purchase and sale agreement.
What seems inappropriate to me is that the Dutch government allowed the sale of the company and then seized control of it because they weren’t happy with what the new owners choose to do with it.
Years ago I sold a house. The new owners cut down the beautiful old apple tree in the front yard, turning it into a barren expanse of grass lawn. I didn’t like it. My old neighbours didn’t like it. It was a loss to the community. But none of us suggested the new owners didn’t have the right to do with their tree as they choose and none of us even attempted to sieze control of their property. It would have been absurd if we had.
Actually, thinking leads to writing and writing leads to thinking. It’s not a one-way causal relationship. There is a positive feedback loop, when all is well. Until the thinking and writing collectively leads to exhaustion, at which point it’s time for a break and come back at it another time - maybe another day, after a good sleep.