Fear is an immediate, emotional response to a known or definite threat.
Anxiety is a more prolonged emotion that arises from an anticipated or potential threat or a situation that's uncertain. Unlike fear, the source of anxiety might not be real or immediate.
- fear is transient, you feel it in the moment and then it goes away. You can then remember "boy I was scared" and feel the memory of fear but not fear itself. You can project and imagine a situation where you'd be scared.
- anxiety is a persistent state of stressful anguish. There are peaks and troughs. During peaks it can be overwhelming and look like, trigger, or mix with fear. During troughs anxiety is still there somewhere deep, it merely takes a backseat to other emotions. In every moment it biases every process your mind undertakes.
Fear is a response to a perceived threat. For example, in a panic attack you fear dying, but you are in no more danger than anyone else.
Anxiety is a kind of fuzzy term because it encompasses an overall pattern and cycle as well as the associated feelings. But a useful distinction is that anxiety is driven by avoidance of fear of some uncertainty, and exposure and acclimation to that fear (without avoidance) is what extinguishes the anxiety.
Avoidance can take almost any form, but common examples include worry and rumination, procrastination, compulsive rituals like hand-washing or internet research, self-medicating, and superstitious behaviors. And of course, literal avoidance.
I think this splits hairs. Yes, fear means "perceived" threat. You could be acculturated to handling venomous snakes, but that doesn't male the average modern society dweller pathologically fearful of the same snakes. Anxiety is about the distorted anticipation of a threat. E.g., the snake handler has been doing this his whole life, but after seeing his brother accidentally step on one, get bitten, and die, he starts fearing that every one of his future interactions with snakes will be so likely to entail that outcome that he refuses to touch them anymore, and can't avoid a panic attack if he's in the room with one, despite all his past skill.
I was responding to a suggestion that fear occurs when the trigger is a “real” threat. But of course, the feeling is the same regardless of whether the hazard is real.
Also, since I’ve already been accused of hair-splitting, I might as well point out:
> can't avoid a panic attack
There’s no need to avoid a panic attack. In fact, trying to avoid a panic attack feeds the panic.
Do you mention the distinction between creation and discovery because it's a distinction in law? Cos it seems intuitively obvious to me that distinguishing between creation and discovery has no philosophical merit - creativity happens within many finite domains, the size of the problem domain really has little relevance to something's artistic value.
The exhausting of useful chords as you describe has both already happened and will never happen. There are countless songs already based on the most common chord progressions, but new ones will also continue to be found for the foreseeable future. We're nowhere near knowing the size of this domain.
I am completely on the IA's side here, and I hope they win the case. Down with copyright.
However, "on average, each recording in the collection is only accessed by one researcher per month" seems to me like a dishonest way to present the data. Surely surely there are one or a few recordings in the project that are vastly more popular than others. That's always how it goes. So "on average" completely obscures how popular the most popular ones might be.
Shouldn't the plaintiffs then single out that particular popular record, and not try to take down the entire catalogue? It goes both ways - if you ask for all you get data about all and that data shows one access/month.
The plaintiff doesn't want to open a loophole. Suppose that one of these records gets used in a major film soundtrack, and now everybody is downloading it. They will have a harder time asserting their ownership if they don't defend it now.
Their approach stands on applying the law as written: "This is mine and you can't have it, even if I don't really much care about it."
As I understand it: in USA law copyright, unlike a trademark, is not invalidated by failure to defend it. You are free to ignore unauthorised copying of, or usage, of your work until such time as you find it sufficiently objectionable.
I disagree. A median value might be really misleading (you could have very high usage for 49% of the collection, and nothing for the rest). But assuming average means "mean..."
You might have a few hotspots, but there's a very tight upper bound on how many downloads of each item. Further, it argues that the overall collection has a very high research and preservation value compared to the total number of downloads.
I don't agree. The size of the set is of paramount importance to that point. They can always bring the mean down by just adding more recordings to the set, to further obscure how popular the most popular recordings are. In a set of 10 billion, of course people aren't listening to most of them.
Quite clearly what the plaintiffs are afraid of is that there are a few very popular works in there that they could be making real money from. There's no way to know this from the mean alone.
The companies have very successful legal departments. They go after the next lowest hanging fruit. They are just working, it's their job description to do this. This is why they will never stop, it never gets too absurd or overly unreasonable.
Even if all the traffic were from 100 pieces, that's a few thousand downloads per month. Let's talk about those specific pieces, then, instead of trying to obliterate an archive.
Yes, completely agree. It did occur to me that I could have taken this into the political realm but decided to keep it bounded in software practice itself for now.
I try to be skeptical about new tech. But I honestly don't see GPT anything like Blockchain. Blockchain was always opposed by the establishment, it was a scrappy hacker thing trying to disrupt traditional finance. By contrast, GPT is born of the monopolies, and it has such immediately obvious applications.
Yes, you're right. Not everything in the world is a ponzi scheme. I clearly didn't write my post with enough caveats in it. I'm just saying tons of shit that happens all the time is a ponzi scheme. The selling of stock for a business of value isn't a ponzi scheme in itself, but the speculation on that stock then largely is - stock value bears very little relation to "real worth". Stock that pays dividends is fine when held for that purpose. The thing is that so many of these systems are set up to encourage speculation. And now everything is high frequency trading etc. That is the toxicity.
