nymwit

So you're talking about placing app windows everywhere? Then you're limited to placing apple's available apps for the device everywhere around you aren't you? Which doesn't sound like what you want. I'm taking your 3 monitors comment to mean you're not running 3 monitors worth of mobile apps (because that would be wild if you were!). The 360 degree desktop setup here is going to be more like 360 degrees of ipad apps seems like. Maybe a windows remote desktop sort of app with multiple instances/windows all around you? Multiple safari instances all connected to some sort of web based remote desktop? I too want "spatial computing" to be more platform agnostic and want to be able to just paste applications or desktops on blank walls or floating in space.

The stuff I've seen is saying it can only do one extra display from a mac. Is there another way? The high resolution capabilities also suggest one full quality display would max out wireless bandwidth.

Cool. Thanks. I can see it now. No, not really, just the pieces over time I've read on what wins fair use protections when challenged often talk about the interpretations involved and that profit making was generally seen as detracting from gaining fair use protections when the extent of the transformative nature was in question.

This mentions it, but of course it isn't data on what has been granted protections vs. denials of protection. Harvard counsel primer on copyright and fair use

Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are made in connection with content that is sold, ad-supported, or profit-making. When the use of a work is commercial, the user must show a greater degree of transformation (see below) in order to establish that it is fair.

I don't disagree with that statement. I'm having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

from your second link. I don't often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you're making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

wasn't the big deal with the Russians that it was at the level of the entire organization rather than done by limited specific individuals?

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -Heraclitus

"Oh, my God, that's disgusting! Software that makes naked pics online? Where? Where did they post those?"

Can you run games like this in a virtual machine? Would that eliminate kernel level general invasiveness concerns because it's a...virtual kernel I guess? Does that virtualization require too much overhead to run demanding games?

So just like shitty biased algorithms shouldn't be making life changing decisions on folks' employability, loan approvals, which areas get more/tougher policing, etc. I like stating obvious things, too. A robot pulling the trigger isn't the only "life-or-death" choice that will be (is!) automated.

Unless they really bury them in other regular features and make them indispensable, I don't care. I don't really see myself using the ones they've advertised so it won't bother me to not pay for them and for them not to be active. I get the distaste though, especially among this community with the preferences I've seen. That's perfectly valid. My own choice will be to not pay for any subscription for any AI type services. My Note 20 Ultra has served me well. I may bite on this one (flat screen woohoo!). I'll miss the SD card though.

Perhaps, but folks are still wriggling around trying to make it happen. That and this being more an AR/VR hybrid (XR they called it? barf) along with apple's usual polish (and ardent reality distortion field susceptible consumer base) could make a difference. Maybe. Also, dead can mean different things, no? There is a market for driving wheels and seats and such for racing games but it isn't widespread like having a playstation is. I wouldn't say driving peripherals were dead but just niche. That's probably covered with your "consumer" descriptor of VR vs. what might be called an enthusiast market though. I appreciate the casting of your opinion to posterity.