Property rights don't just protect natural resources, but labor as well. If I cleared out hunting ground in that forest to be the prime spot to catch animals, I would make sure I can use it when I want.

> a small number of people were able to completely deplete parts of the earth

A small number of people seems inaccurate when there's typically many more individuals in the pipelines for these technologies.

> and in return profit off the knowledge over and over again at industrial scale

Not off just that knowledge, there needed to be a model trained on the data of many others to utilize it.

> Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article?

Who's better at writing in this scenario and what are my motivations? If it's ChatGPT and I did it for money, then I would say I should recognize that I can't compete and find something AI can't do. If it's ChatGPT and I write to convey my ideas in an effort to learn regardless of the bestowment of a new perspective on the reader, I'll keep writing.

> Why would anyone plant seeds on someone else's farm?

They wouldn't unless it was their own way to attain food and survive. And if it's not the only way, they can defer to those with optimal methods to get it the cheapest they can in the market.

Not on the lightning network. Fees are used to incentivize or disincentivize routes across channels.

> The institution handling this offchaing lightning branch can implement fees in whatever structure you agree to transact, including percentage based.

No institution is needed. Even if one is used as an intermediary, when using lightning non-custodially, the economics of lightning are such that fees are determined by the nodes in the payer's desired route. If it's a custodial transfer from one user to another, no routes are needed.

If the engineer proposes an implementation the devops team doesn’t like, the devops team should come up with a counter proposal that still fulfills their requirements. And if their counter proposal fulfills the requirements but the engineer objects, then whoever’s at the top of both their branches in the org chart should be making the decision.

That doesn't sound like what happened lol. I'm sure there were many other avenues she could have tried, she probably chose the one she preferred.

I don't know how you extrapolated that from the parent's comment. It literally said nothing about the cause and effect of this particular event.

Knowing the odds in a prediction market IS a big part of the problem brought up in the linked article though (and the bets themselves). Knowing how much can be made from being right creates an upper-bound on what a financially-rational malicious actor will spend in trying to change the outcome.

It would make more sense to campaign for better background checks on WhatsApp. A case can be made that a chat system with discoverable identities should have better safeguards. If the incentive to make a threat is financial gain rather than a pure desire to kill, restricting the means in which a threat can even be made (or identifying the participants) would help silence the noise and give actionable insights to law enforcment.

I’m generally opposed to KYC and similar measures, but if a platform is already collecting massive amounts of user data, it should at least use that data to help protect the people who become vulnerable because of it.

Except this is even crazier because the bets aren't on people dying, it's about a reportable event. Any of Polymarket's silence in voicing whether the outcome was determined by this unwilling participant's writing makes them complicit. When there's a single source of truth, it makes a target for vested parties that doesn't benefit from the security the platform and their employees get from hosting the bet.

No, not really. Broadly, it's not "measurements, metrics and surveillance" that kill creativity, it's the inability to make reasonable thresholds for failure. If the threshold is too low, one might never be able to get the critical mass of resources they need to achieve their task. If it's set too high, people will milk resources even when they have no creativity left to give to an unsolved problem.

Ridiculous. I don't want specifications for proprietary APIs to be protected, and I don't want the free ones to be either. The software community seemed pretty certain as a whole that this would be very bad for competition [1].

Morally, I don't think there's anything wrong with re-implementing a technology with the same API as another, or running a test suite from a GPL licensed codebase. The code wasn't stolen, it was capitalized on. Like a business using a GPL code editor to write a new one.

> This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing

Also this doesn't make any logical sense. A condition on sharing cannot exist without corresponding restrictions.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/mklieg/supreme_cou...