Lady @Lady@cat.family

@coriander i only remember people wanting to move to a city for queer community and girlfriends

@coriander it’s too bad hiphop didn’t exist yet in 1890 i bet lenin would have come up with some bars

@SRLevine @inherentlee if you are in the United States (or any other country subject to the Berne convention, i assume, which is most of them, but i know less about other countries’ laws) you do not have to include a copyright footer at all, and what you put in it has no real legal weight. as far as the law is concerned, copyright exists from the moment of authorship, automatically, without need for notice or registration.

the purpose of the copyright notice is twofold:

• first, it informs people that the work is under copyright, so they cannot claim they thought it was under public domain when they infringed on it. this does not negate the infringement, but claiming ignorance might reduce the damages you would receive if you sued.

• second, it provides and maintains a record of when the work was first published and who its author was. for anonymous works, the date impacts when it enters public domain, but for works of singular, known, authorship, the length of copyright is based on the lifetime of the author and not publication date, so only the author really matters.

knowing who authored something and when it was published provides social benefit even when it offers no legal benefit, of course. having the copyright footer just always be the current year does not benefit anyone (we all already know what the current year is), so in that case i would just leave the year off. providing the range at least gives the years a website has been operative.

the preceding commentary is provided for informational/entertainment purposes only and is not intended as legal advice

@aschmitz @wallhackio what i have learned from RDF is that it is better to just call everything a pie and say one of them has rhubarb intent, because if you say it is a rhubarb pie chances are downstream systems have no idea wtf that is

@aescling @wallhackio yes, my argument about clodsire being a whale was that it isn’t, but i was incorrect. i see now; my bad

@aescling @wallhackio oh she does think clodsire is a whale nvm i guess i was incorrect

@wallhackio i’m assuming that arguments like these are how @aescling consoles herself that clodsire is not a whale

@wallhackio let us suppose there exists a finite concept of a whale and clodsire participates in it and humpback whales also participate in it. let W1 be the concept which encompasses exactly just clodsire and humpback whales. surely this concept W1 also participates in the concept of a whale? but now let us consider a concept W2, which encompasses both clodsire, humpack whales, and our previous concept W1. this concept, too, surely participates in the concept of a whale? by extending this process, we can find that in fact there are an infinitely many things which participate in the concept of being a whale. how, then, can the concept of a whale have a finite definition? by contradiction, we cannot say there is a finite concept of a whale that both clodsire and humpback whales participate in. but if the concept of a whale is not finite, it cannot be knowable as knowledge is finite. furthermore, if a finite concept of a whale exists, it surely must include humpback whales. it follows that clodsire cannot be known to be a whale

@wallhackio correct, a rhubarb pie is a rhubarb pie, not a pie