![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
God damn it, that headline got my hopes up for a second.
God damn it, that headline got my hopes up for a second.
Butterfly, the man’s hand outstretched.
Not every member of the Commonwealth has the British monarch as head of state (in fact the majority do not).
No, the full context of the code snippet doesn’t appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it’s most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.
undefined
I have a web dev joke but [object Object]
I feel it’s important to add that the clip ends immediately after the Doctor slaps Paris.
That is a trickier question. My gut feeling is that while it makes sense for a person’s likeness to enter the public domain after they die, it feels a bit morbid and disrespectful for it to become possible to start running AI generated ads of a celebrity the day that they die. I hate how long copyright lasts now, but I feel like there should be at least some period after someone dies before their likeness enters the public domain. I don’t know how long that should be, but definitely shorter than copyright currently is (which should also be much shorter).
My other concern is that if studios can freely recreate dead celebrities then new talent won’t get a chance to make a name for themselves. Hollywood would much rather milk existing celebrities for every cent possible with AI (which is part of the reason for the SAG/AFTRA strike I guess). I don’t have an answer for this right now.
Yes and yes imo. A person’s voice is part of their likeness, and people should get to decide how their likeness is used and get paid for such usage.
Not to mention that the bar for a referendum to pass is very high. For the non-Australians, you need not only a majority of voters nationally to vote yes, but also a majority of states to vote yes (the so-called “double majority”). Only 8 of the last 44 referendums before now have passed and partisan referendums have never passed, so this one was doomed the minute Dutton decided to play politics with it.
I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?
I look forward to fighting Clippy as a raid boss
It’s going to moon any day now, for real this time! /s
Little Bobby Tables
I signed up on lemm.ee because I had trouble signing up on aussie.zone at first, but after trying again it worked and now aussie.zone is my ‘home’ instance. I do also have a Mastodon account on mastodon.world.
snake_case gang represent