KairuByte

Ok? That doesn’t answer my question, if anything it makes it more obvious how you are incorrect:

If a [insert digital format name] already exists, as you claim, then why go to the trouble of obtaining, destroying, and scanning the books again?

Your response reads like there are more options than just PDF, so it’s fine to destroy the books.

If they buy 100k books and destroy them all, even if every one is unique, that is en mass. I don’t know why I have to explain that to you, but there you go.

In certain situations I’d agree that the absence of contradiction is evidence enough, but those situations are pretty specific. For example, we don’t have absolute proof that orange juice doesn’t cause cancer, our “proof” comes from the lack of reliable evidence showing that it does, along with relevant research. But that doesn’t mean every claim can be treated the same way. But that doesn’t mean every claim can be treated the same way, especially a claim based only on “every article I saw,” without a source being provided.

I don’t think that’s the argument you think it is.

The outrage is over the books being destructively scanned, en mass, and held in private after the fact. Very, very, very different than the majority of scanning which is non destructive, and usually shared.

So you have the digital source of literally any book? Literally any single book you yourself didn’t write or publish.

Because the source code for GTA6 exists, but you sure as shit don’t have it.

every article I saw says the books were scheduled to be destroyed or taken to a dump

Do you have a source for this? Because I’ve seen literally nothing about this being the way books are being sourced. And no offense but this reads way too close to weasel words. For example: Every article I’ve read on the subject says my pants are sentient and enjoys my legs being in them. Also, I’ve read no articles on the subject so that isn’t a lie.

There are many, many non destructive scanning methods. My understanding is that most archival projects are using the non destructive options.

The easy option is to just slice off the binding and run it through a scanner.

The easy option is what is being talked about here, and those books are then fed into AI as training material. The digital copies aren’t “making knowledge permanent” as they are tucked away into a digital corner virtually no one has access to. They are as permanent as the source code for Fortnite.

If a PDF already exists, as you claim, then why go to the trouble of obtaining, destroying and scanning the books again?

No, but potentially because that happened IRL to me.

Boss wouldn’t even listen to using a nonce per call because the caller and target used different databases. Same back end, just different databases.

Yeah, the number of times I heard “that’s an edge case” when it came to security so we didn’t have to invest dev time was maddening. One of my old employers, if you know the right URL to call, you can just mass print whatever you want from the open internet. But because it’s an “internal application” it was deemed not a concern, simply because most of the people who are intended to use it wouldn’t know how to inspect network traffic.

We don’t even know if there will actually be cameras.

Recording inherently means saving. The exact definition includes the word “permanent”. Arguing that recording in this case means “the image data exists in memory” is a level of semantics that means literally nothing in this argument. Yes, we are all quite aware that the image data exists in one form or another when the camera is on. The question is, is it creating a recording, streaming that out, or handling the data locally and disposing of the data before it reaches permanent storage.