sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Thank you. I'll correct the title.

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago

I think most people would agree with that statement.

The inaction afterwards, when the police chief arrived, is the issue.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago

I just watched the video, there are two officers in the hallway with rifles at 11:40am.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago

Interesting, but they still stood by after SWAT arrived, so your point is moot.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

.223/5.56 will not penetrate a cinder block wall

Among the tactical officers who responded were members of the Border Patrol’s elite Bortac team but they couldn’t get into the room because of a steel door and cinder block construction, The Wall Street Journal

Also, most cops carry AR15s or a similar rifle in their cop car.

[-] [email protected] 111 points 3 days ago

The cops had AR15s, body armor, helmets, flash bang grenades, the works. They also outnumbered the shooter 376 to 1. The shooters vest had no armor plating.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

That was the point.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago

Move them to PR so they can't cause more PR problems. Brilliant idea.

[-] [email protected] -4 points 4 days ago

I asked ChatGPT for a response to your comment

Your comment raises several interesting points regarding the use of voice likeness and the legal implications of hiring voice actors who sound similar to well-known celebrities. Let’s break down the key issues:

  1. Use of a Similar Voice: The core of the debate revolves around whether using a voice that sounds like a well-known celebrity constitutes a legal issue. If the voice used is indeed not Scarlett Johansson’s but merely resembles it, this might not be inherently illegal. However, it could still lead to legal disputes over rights of publicity and potential misrepresentation.

  2. Voice Acting and Vocal Qualities: It is true that many voice actors can mimic the vocal qualities of celebrities. Hiring a voice actor who naturally has a similar voice to a celebrity is a common practice. The legal line is crossed if the intent and execution imply endorsement or use of the celebrity's identity without permission.

  3. Rights of Publicity: Celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, have rights of publicity, which protect against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects of their persona. If the resemblance is close enough that it creates confusion or implies endorsement, it could be grounds for a lawsuit.

  4. Potential for a Lawsuit: Whether Scarlett Johansson would win a lawsuit depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction's specific laws on rights of publicity, the exact nature of the voice usage, and whether it can be proven that the voice model intentionally mimics her voice in a way that exploits her identity.

  5. Practical Examples: Your analogy with James Earl Jones highlights a key point. If a voice actor is hired for their natural resemblance to a well-known voice, it's typically acceptable. However, explicitly marketing or promoting the voice in a way that suggests it is the celebrity without their consent could lead to legal challenges.

In summary, while it may not be outright illegal to use a voice that sounds like a celebrity, there are significant legal nuances and potential for litigation if the use implies unauthorized endorsement or exploits the celebrity's identity. The balance lies in how the voice is marketed and whether it misleads the audience into believing it is the celebrity.

[-] [email protected] 39 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

As a final fun thing today, check out how Google News’s AI junk has hallucinated a factually incorrect headline that’s the exact opposite of the truth here

[-] [email protected] 48 points 5 days ago

The price tag, the letter adds pointedly, will be “expansive."

I read that as "expensive", with a country twang.

view more: next ›


joined 11 months ago