This would also solve a major annoyance I have with card payments, which is no way to link a particular purchase back to a transaction.
With checks, you write a check and can write down the check number with a note about what the payment was for. When the payment posts, the check number is part of the transaction. With a card payment, they charge your card and, sometimes days later, there's a pre-authorization with some obscure transaction description. So many scary transaction descriptions that make me think "wait is this fraud".
With this method, the approval flow would also allow people to add a blurb for what the transaction is for.
> Practically, Reg E is essentially as strong as Reg Z.
Not even practically, but that's beside the point. The point is that with regulation E, I am potentially put in a position where I have to work to get my money back; I have to file a lawsuit against the bank if I think their determination is wrong (and that's assuming there isn't an arbitration provision, but many people don't realize they agreed to binding arbitration).
With regulation Z, the bank has to work to get their money back. They have to file the lawsuit against me if they really want the money. And it's $0 liability under many circumstances mandated through the regulation, not just a revocable promise from the bank.
Which is why the credit card is still the better option. Especially given that the max liability on a credit card is always $50 if caught within the first 60 days, while the max liability on a debit card is $50 only if caught within the first two days, then up to $500 if reported after up to 60 days.
They may post a provisional credit when I report the fraud on the debit card or they can wait up to 10 days to do so. With a credit card, no money has left my account and I get the final say on whether I want to part ways with my real money. If the bank really wants to fuck me over by saying it's not fraud, I get to make it as unprofitable as possible for them, which includes forcing them to sue me if they really want the money.
I will take the ding to my credit report and a lawsuit over actual money taken directly out of my account any day.
> while the max liability on a debit card is $50 only if caught within the first two days
Within two days of learning of the fraudulent use or the loss of an "access device" (i.e. a card). Otherwise you have 60 days from the statement date as well.
> I will take the ding to my credit report and a lawsuit over actual money taken directly out of my account any day.
That's definitely true for many people, but probably not for many others, e.g. anyone wanting to buy a house or even rent an apartment.
If the money is taken out of your checking account and you can't pay a bill or rent, you are in the same exact situation of having your credit/rental history ruined. The time horizon for that happening is just sooner. The credit card still wins.
Idk, it's more like "your writing is cliché and I don't feel like reading it because I've already read something that sounded similar countless times and it wasn't worth the read". The source of the clichés being an LLM. And maybe now humans are writing the same way as LLM output, I still am not going to read all that, sorry. If I see a sea of clichés, I'm going the other way.
I'm also not reading pumpkin spice murder mysteries for a similar reason. I'm also not reading stories where everybody clapped. Actually, I'm already familiar with petrichor, so unless someone has surrounded the word "petrichor" with non-cliché prose, I'm also not going to read all that.
Nah, we all pay for a lawyer with our taxes: the attorney general.
What you do is send Google your own correspondence, certified mail, giving them a heads up that you've contacted the attorney general. That usually gets an even quicker response than from a personal lawyer :)
It also gives the attorney general office a heads up if they need to be scrutinizing a company like Google more carefully if they're getting a lot of complaints.
Situations like this are exactly what they're here for.
The other thing they could be doing is using some of that lobbying money to try to reform copyright law to allow them to release the scans that are still covered.
It would likewise earn goodwill from a lot of people.
The United States can't make copyright weaker than what those agreements require without pulling out of the WTO.
The core of copyright law is about who has the right to redistribute a work. If I buy a print of a photograph, scan it and use that as my desktop image... I can do that. I cannot redistribute the scanned image, and if I was to sell the print later I should delete the scanned image.
Note that format shifting is covered under fair use... which is what training is taking place under. However, that doesn't mean that they can release that format shifted content... nor can then re-release the original work if they are retaining the format shifted content.
Under § 106 of the Copyright Law of the United States, the owner of the copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies of that work, unless an exception applies. When considering reformatting media, please note that individuals do not have an automatic right to reformat a work from one format to another. In order to legally convert media, your use must fall into one of the following categories:
you own the copyright in the work,
you have permission from the owner of the copyright, or
you have done a fair use analysis and have determined that fair use applies
They could be, however that would weaken their position as the sole source of knowledge which seems to me is half the purpose of their book destroying initiative.
Yes and doing regenerative practices all the way to the end would naturally force this reduction in consumption. It would be really good, because the land used to grow feed could be redirected to other more efficient uses.
Yes, down to the false equivalence of "human hallucination" with AI hallucination. Except that a human who hallucinates too much will eventually be permanently discredited and especially so if that human is trying to be an expert in too many things. Yet we are asked over and over again to forgive the LLM's mistakes because of what it can do. Oh it can do this right, this was just one situation where it did something wrong. So tiresome.
With checks, you write a check and can write down the check number with a note about what the payment was for. When the payment posts, the check number is part of the transaction. With a card payment, they charge your card and, sometimes days later, there's a pre-authorization with some obscure transaction description. So many scary transaction descriptions that make me think "wait is this fraud".
With this method, the approval flow would also allow people to add a blurb for what the transaction is for.
reply