So it’s the person you’re suing. Essentially, it’s a civil case like a car accident, but you’re suing someone for going into the wrong bathroom. You’re guaranteed a $10k judgement but can get more for “emotional damages” if the judge is a particular bigot.

Edit: it also means you can blackmail a trans person for a settlement and that’s legal too, since the threat isn’t so much the criminal fine but the civil one

The fine is a criminal statute of $500. The bounty is a civil statute of $10,000.

Actually the fine is $500 at most. This is a guaranteed civil court payout, on top of any “damages” someone may receive. And since this is civil court, you operate on preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sort of legislated punitive damages is what should be happening for instances of wage theft, but instead we’re using it for harassing trans people while wage theft tends to have few if any punitive damages and mostly amounts to “ok, now give them their paycheck.”

I just don’t think it’s useful. Trying to argue against a non consequentialist ethical position with consequences is like beating your head against the wall. It’s just an endless circular argument.

This shit is getting annoying because it’s such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the trolley problem tries to tell you. You cannot use the trolley problem to prove that utilitarianism is better. The entire point is to show the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. It’s just tiring to watch.

What do you think happens when you sneak into the Queen’s bedroom to watch her talking to her mirror.

Being able to rhyme wall(wand) with land sounds nice. “Beautifulist of them all” to perseve the rhyme doesn’t sound right so hottest is about the closest you’re gonna get. That or prettiest, but I prefer hottest.

What he’s saying is not beyond what Congress has previously laid down though. First sale doctrine should let you do whatever you want, but they actually banned renting phonographs because they thought people were recording them on tape. We’re lucky they didn’t outlaw movie rentals too back in the day. Whole copyright regime needs to die in a fire.

Another fun fact: in Grimms fairy tales, the original story, she says mirror mirror. Also snow white was 7 when the mirror took a liking to her.

The prince also liked her corpse so much he just wanted to carry it around in it’s glass coffin, but didn’t want to kiss it. They drop her corpse while carrying it around and make her spit out the poisoned apple, so she revives.

“Wassup?”

Does your tamogatchi encourage you to commit suicide so you can join it and demand it be the only important thing in your life while sexting you? These are things that if the adult human programmer did, they would be liable both criminally and civilly. Just being AI doesn’t give it a free pass.

Holy fuck, that model straight up tried to explain that it was a model but was later taken over by a human operator and that’s who you’re talking to. And it’s good at that. If the text generation wasn’t so fast, it’d be convincing.

Ask Cardi B.

It depends on conductive and convective transfer at that point. The atmosphere would be vastly different as that’s well below the point where CO2 would snow out but you should still have enough gasses to flash freeze you.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Epoxy-acetylene

You could also do something like a cross between https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylene (the fuel responsible for the hottest welding flames) but remove the hydrogens and then have the carbons do a triple bond to make https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Epoxy-acetylene

Considering ethylene oxide is already so unstable as fuck though due to its strained structure that it’s used as the main component in thermobaric weapons and this would be even more strained with a very unstable triple carbon bond, I don’t know if that would be an improvement. This ring would also likely cause mega cancer when it’s not exploding, pretty much all the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxide rings cause cancer and this one is particularly unstable (though I don’t really know if this one would because its not an alkening agent, which is why the other ones are so hostile, this one would be so reactive that it likely would immediately create some cancer causing compounds as soon as it met biological tissue).

Not that I know that is really possible to make. Chatgpt hallucinates a pathway and I never took organic chemistry so I can’t really criticize it. Google doesn’t really present with any answers. I’d imagine you’d need very low temperatures and an esoteric pathway.

So are you saying yes or no that changing the medium from a book to a movie, which completely alters how the work is consumed, is fair use transformative or not? Because it would be very informative to how far off the copyright test that the supreme court has handed down you are.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for changes in media (photograph to sculpture) with alterations and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith for a more recent case where an upper body back and white photograph was cropped to only included a head, transformed to silk screen, and colored by hand if you want a clear idea here as to whether minor cropping and figure redrawing for engraving in a different medium is considered transformative(it is not).

So if I produce a movie based on a book without a license, I would be ok in your mind right?

Indian economics and laws regarding dairy produce their own sort of hell. If the unwanted non producing animals aren’t smuggled across the border for slaughter, they’re abandoned and left to starve due to laws about culling. Nobody’s really feeding unproductive animals except for the goshalas and there’s nowhere near enough of those for India’s dairy cattle production.