You haven’t provided a single source that backs up your claim. I will continue to talk with you once you did.

You haven’t provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.

If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.

Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that’s what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it’s on Wikipedia?

Wieder mal eine Frage der KPIs. Wenn Erfolg daran gemessen wird, wie viele Leute man fängt, dann wird eben darauf optimiert statt auf das Wohl der Opfer, welches ja für die KPIs nix bringt.

Und wenn man mit einer Maßnahme, die Opfern stark schadet eine marginal höhere Chance hat Täter zu fangen, dann macht man das eben. Selbst wenn die Maßnahme ggf sogar dazu führt, dass es mehr Täter, mehr Opfer und mehr Verbrechen gibt. Das ist nämlich gut für die KPI.

I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.

While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren’t supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn’t “having new arguments”. It’s “running out of arguments but not admitting to it”. And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there’s no point bringing new arguments apart from “a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row”.

Tbh, I am surprised that you seem to know the exact legal situation in regards to patent law in Canada of 1923, and that you have such a strong opinion on that matter.

I would recommend you to read the corresponding Wikipedia secton where all the thinking that went into that decision is laid out quite well.

I would venture to say that legal experts of the time at the time understood the patent law of the time a little better than some random users on Lemmy.

Of course, but an university owning a patent gives them the responsibility to defend it, and also incentivizes them to do so.

That logic applies identically to a valid patent.

The difference is that in the case of transferring the patent to the university, there’s a legal department at the ready to defend the patent. The same is not the case for a disclaimed patent.

Ein wichtiger Unterschied zwischen der finanziellen Belastung durch Pensionisten und durch Kinder ist wie die Belastung getragen wird.

Der Staat zahlt schon ein bisschen was an Kinder (Schule, Familienbeihilfe, Karenzgeld), aber den Großteil der finanziellen Mehrbelastung den zahlen die Eltern (größere Wohnung, Essen, Kleidung, Spielzeug, Kurse, Auto, …). Deswegen scheint diese Mehrbelastung auch nicht im Staatshaushalt auf.

Pensionisten hingegen werden zu fast 100% aus dem Staatshaushalt bzw. privater Pensionsvorsorge finanziert, beides Dinge, die direkt in den Statistiken auftauchen.

Die sichtbare Mehrbelastung ist also bei Pensionisten deutlich höher.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist es also durchaus auch wichtig auf der Einnahmensseite mehr zu tun (z.B. indem man das Limit der Bemessensgrundlage für Pensionen nicht erhöht sondern abschafft).

Chemotherapy is bad for the person receiving chemo, it’s just even worse for the cancer. Yes, it cures people, but nobody in their right mind would use chemo on a healty person and claim that it wasn’t bad for that person.

If you have ever seen someone going through chemo, it’s really rough on them, and it’s only done in the hope of getting rid of the cancer and being able to stop using chemo.

But the analogy doesn’t make sense for the discussion on hand, because what propaganda bots do is polarizing, creating distrust, dividing society and cause people to do stupid things due to being angry.

Propaganda bots do that by posting extreme statements on all sides of the political spectrum. They post both pro-russia and anti-russia stuff, pro-capitalism and anti-capitalism, pro-trans and anti-trans, and so on.

So making bots to post anti-russia stuff is doing half their work.

An anti-russia bot would not be chemotherapy, it would be injecting cancer cells into the patient.

Maybe one could make a bot that posts moderate views and content advocating for reconcilliation or something like that.

Nowadays you just google for other patents and done. But back then, I guess that searching for prior art was quite a lot more difficult. Gifting the patent to an university so that they defend open access to the patent sounds like a more reliable plan.

I mean, even nowadays patents are greenlit my patent offices even though there’s clear prior art (Nintendo’s recent patent for catching monsters in a ball in a game comes to mind, which Nintendo would have to have patented before publishing their first game with that mechanic around 30 years ago), and even today it’s really difficult and expensive to get such a clear nonsense patent invalidated.

So difficult that e.g. Palworld opted to change the mechanic instead of fighting the patent.

So I do understand why someone would instead gift the patent to an university under the condition that they keep access to it open, especially 100 years ago.

Sounds like the network people at my company. They are asking us to spend more time in the office, but they don’t provide enough desks, they don’t provide working wired LAN and they only provide semi-working Wifi. All with proxies that don’t work and filters that don’t let me access the webapp I am supposed to maintain, which is blocked for “being a commercial website”. Thanks, I know, I have to program that crap.

As someone who is used to sleep-deprivation, I can second that.

Remember, the 1920s is long ago. Giving the patent to the equivalent of a non-profit organisation was probably better than disclaiming it, since it’s easier to have one large, well-known entity that will fight off people trying to re-patent it than to disclaim it and hope that no patent clerk ever lets a fraudulent re-patent go through.

In 1920 you couldn’t just google for prior art when fighting a fraudulent patent.

IMHO the mask simply came off in 2008 when they bailed out the rich and not the poor. They’re pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining. As more and more people are forced into poverty while the stock market soars, more of us are rightfully asking these questions. So what are we gonna do about it? Do you trust your savings to someone who insists that the economy is rich people’s yachts?

It’s all just a matter of goals. Is economics there to help the poor, the middle class or the rich? Depending on your answer, it’s either an absolute failure or an unmitigated success.

And considering the golden rule (“The one who has the gold makes the rules”), it’s quite clear what’s happening there. All of the economics technobabble is only there to distract and justify, not to actually make sense.

Music of the (insert decade) is generally better than music of today largely by virtue of having a decade to choose from, versus picking over the most recent year or two

That’s a really good point. The most of the crap that was played in the 80s didn’t make it into the “top 100 songs of the 80s” list, hence what’s left over today is not the crap.

Stimme zu. Frag mich allerdings auch warum der so unkreativ ist. Irgendwas wird der doch für seine Arbeitnehmer zu tun finden. Es heißt ja nur dass einen Dispatcher braucht, nicht dass der nebenher nichts Anderes machen darf.

This. In Austria most libraries have a self-scan machine where you have to return your books and the librarians will sort the books back in. Part of the reason for that is that they need to check the condition the books were returned in.

No, that’s not it.

It would be it if @Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org would have said “I hate how they are able to afford the medical care they need, and I don’t”, which is exactly the opposite of what they said.

You can genuinely be happy for Randall Munroe’s wife, while still being critical that people need to be able to afford life-saving health care. That’s not a contradiction, and the original comment did exactly explore that.

And I’m pretty sure that if you ask Randall Munroe and his wife, they would have preferred to not pay for her treatment either, and I’d be very surprised if they’d be like “We were able to afford it, so we are good, and people who can’t afford it should just die, because they are bad”.

There’s no need to turn people against each other when the fault lies with a broken and corrupt system and with billionaires enriching themselves on the suffering of all the others while outright buying politicians for their cause.

Have a look around this thread. There’s people right here who didn’t have the money and had relatives die.

It’s got nothing to do with virtue signalling when people are literally dieing because health care is too expensive for them.

And being offended by other people talking about dieing because of a failed system doesn’t make you anything but a smug asshole.

Patriotism is nationalism for people who say “I’m not a racist, but”.

Wait for a few more years and you’ll see what patriots do to a country once they have taken over everything and been in power for a few years.

I am from Austria. I know what patriots do.

Patriots are the same shit as real nazis, only they are too cowardly to admit it and they “didn’t know what really happened” until the charade finally collapses.

Over here we have another term for patriots: Mitläufer.