So two companies have inserted themselves into this process as middlemen marketing something which really ought to be freely available to everyone.

Thanks for clarifying how useless these two companies truly are. 🤙

Someone charging for images of the stars when the public probably funded the equipment used is just pure add-a-middle-man economics, isn't it?

The story.

Nothing criminal or anything - just that he leaned on this one thing SO much... that was someone else's creation.

Billy Ray is a classic middleman - no added value... but as always, see username.

Godmother to Miley Cyrus, which means she has some affiliation with Billy Ray..?

Best we could do.

Entirely possible - our experiences weren't universal, & our recollection could readily be wrong.

Common sense would realize that public libraries didn't often have funding for expensive equipment in most neighborhoods, especially new stuff that was delicate and required a lot of maintenance.

>Handwritten notes would be easiest, but portable typewriters did exist. And libraries could have typewriters available.

Those "portable" typewriters - you might want to look up the weight & size. Then remember that "wheels on the case" wasn't a thing yet, and imagine lugging that to a public building. Also the replacement ink, erasing cartridge (if applicable) and if it's electric you're gonna need to plug it in.

Notes were easier - we were there.

>I am slightly too young to remember what kind of copy technology my library had in the mid-1980s, but commercial copiers were introduced in 1959, so it's entirely possible that libraries has them.

Largely, they did not until the 90s.

About a week more of research than Mick Jagger has put into all of his songs combined, if John Mulaney's recounting is accurate.

"A week gong to the library" was half an hour en route, an hour or two there, and half an hour back, plus notes that would hand-written (nobody was hauling a typewriter that far) and "photocopier" was not a publicly available thing.

Yes, at times.

>You could measure the ability to walk in a set of toddlers, but that doesn't imply that it doesn't bode well for our ability to walk as adults.

It would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that the walking difficulty as a toddler might indicate an adjustment is needed so that it doesn't alter the individual as an adult.

You seem to be conflating an indicator for an absolute.

>Personality, behaviour, habits etc... are not static.

Correct, and please note that no one here said they are.

Simply put, childhood oft influences people well into and beyond adulthood. If you don't believe that, cool - you're not interested in that discussion.

No one is saying, or implying, that people can't change. So what's your point, precisely?

>Our lives and behaviour as adults are significantly different to when we were children.

One can see by the "u" in your 'behavior' (😎) an automatic indicator that how one is raised influences choices later in life.

"That marshmallow experiment he mentioned failed replication. The effect disappears when you account for whether the child's mother has a college degree. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/
So if the marshmallow study actually does measure the ability to avoid temptation, then it suggests that our ability to avoid temptation is a function of our socio-economic back-ground and/or the behaviors of our parents. So it doesn't bode well for our ability to improve temptation avoidance as adults." - Gregory Bogosian; Comment posted on OP's link

>Good chance it won't, but that lack of enforcing laws at the leadership level, even in Russia, creates additional resentment in top of what's already in place at the local level.

Completely agree.

Laws are just rules; rules that aren't enforced are meaningless.

And rules are also the only thing that gives leaders any power; if they don't follow the rules, no one should (following their example) and if people all stopped playing by the rules... anarchy.

To speak plainly, your lines are drawn by you, for your purposes.

They are in no way the limits of other people's interests or choices.

Might ponder that.

>...where I draw the line I guess.

So, the line is the limit of your interest in the subject, right?

If their enforcement echoes that of the U.S., it won't happen at all. Which, think is to your point, the system can't sustain that particular choice right now?

It's not like Russian credibility or integrity can go much further down.

This is just the last brittle bit of facade clinging to the wall for the illusion.

That seems an absurd observation in a Philosophy thread.

You lost?

How can a system of education that is coerced and rooted in systemic prejudice possibly teach ethics?

Except in the context of a cautionary tale, we mean.

By making accomplished bullshit equally available to everyone, this puts the burden onto the people who sniff out the bullshitters & only deal with people who can actually walk the talk.

This will probably be an expensive learning curve for a number of companies.

[[The value in skill-stacking is the ability to see more parameters in your analysis. You can have equal credentials in your field as all of the other highly qualified candidates. The candidate who has a complimentary skill or two in their back pocket can see around corners the others can't. Useful understanding for personal development, and recruiting high-function teams.]]

You're talking about diverse perspectives & broad problem solving skills being more effective than specialization of multiple portions - is that correct?

If so, we find this to be true in many capacities that exceed capitalist matters, and honestly an essential component of evolution to the species - if everyone sees things the same way, they tend to end up with the same blindspots.

So, to answer OP's inquiry, Socrates may have found ChatGPT a most democratic tool, ultimately benevolent if used so, as people learn to look for the meaning in what is said.

Guess we'll have to find some economical way of knocking them out of the sky.

When will humans learn not to litter?

They're absolutely right and the people who made those choices will never be held accountable under the current system.

All set to write "When Irish eyes are smiling" with musical emojis, too...