If you don't want to engage in the argument, that's on you. I don't think ChatGPT not being a human makes any difference and I think the onus is on you to explain why it should.
Now you're shifting the goal posts. Please re-read the comments/replies up to this point and you'll see no mention of laws anywhere. That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether AI consumers of publicly accessible content should be required to pay for that content when human consumers should not.
Well if you are blocking access to their crawler, I'd imagine they'd have no need to use an incognito crawler to check for malicious content. Why would they care if that content is not ending up in their index anyway?
Presumably, the incognito crawlers are only used on sites that have already granted the regular crawler access. That's content that ends up in their index which they want to vet.
The idea in this video is also that most conspiracy theories are easy to debunk without even analyzing the contents of the theory, just looking at political factors.
What's preventing them? If they did that, they'd have to give up a fraction of their sales. Also, it's not easy to set or agree on a commission percent when Tesla and the dealerships have such opposing interests to begin with.
In other words, they are not trying this simply because selling direct is a better choice.
Not impossible, no. But we absolutely have enough control over software to make it highly improbable for someone to accidentally delete something important and make it unrecoverable.
First, let me start by saying I'm a day-to-day Ruby developer and I absolutely love the language. That said, there are things besides the speed that prevent the acceptance of Ruby among people:
* No static type checking, potentially resulting in more bugs
* Ease of monkey-patching, potentially resulting in insecurities
* Rampant use of hash-as-arguments, resulting in method definitions that don't actually define their arguments (though Ruby 2.0 fixes this with named parameters, it's still a common pattern)
* Heavy use of symbols, which some people see as the moral equivalent of magic strings
I personally think all of these arguments are bunk except for the over-use of hash-as-arguments even in Ruby 2.0. But some people give them credence.
I think he's taking as axiomatic that there only a few people using ruby, thus claiming this demonstrates the general rule people don't use ruby. Thus he is, in fact, using the phrase correctly.
But by taking it as axiomatic that few people use ruby, he is begging the question.
