The text on the website is misleadingly suggestive that all artists are in USA.

That's a special section featuring and highlighting USA artists, as you can order direct from artists on our site so you can pick and choose them. If you clicked through and selected them you would in fact be ordering from USA artists. It can be misleading if all you do is scan the home page, but we did not design it to be a bait-and-switch.

If you actually go through the purchase funnel it also gets re-iterated (you are prompted to choose where you want your artists from).

What does current law have to do with it? Works for hire are generally copyrighted by the hirer, and copyrights can be transferred by contract.

Just to add a bit of (useful) pedantry - what happens to copyright depends on the jurisdiction. In some (Norway, for instance) you can not fully transfer all rights, even if you want to. (This _is_ pedantry, as you can pretty much transfer any commercial rights - just about the only thing you can not transfer is the right to be named the creator of the work.

It's kind of true that you can't transfer all rights in the US, where while you can nominally transfer all rights, any such transfer can be reclaimed 35 or 40 years, with the required notice of he reclamation provided after 25 or 30 years.

IIRC/IANAL, in Germany you are allowed to transfer commercial use and declare any different name as the creator. But you can't transfer the copyright itself, so you will always stay in control.

The painting is also a derivative work.

People are mad that $4B was spent building this tacky thing instead of on improving the city for not multimillionaires.

Did the government fund it or where's the problem?

A useful prediction is a prediction that matches experimental results.

You can't possibly know what will match experimental results in the future so that doesn't help determine good theories in the present.

And I would say that Newtonian gravity was a useful theory despite not matching experimental currently because when it was the best it mostly explained observations.

> Newtonian gravity was a useful theory despite not matching experiment

"Useful" in this context means useful for a future theory or experimentation, not utility. Newtonian theory certainly predicted many results, and all of them were useful in the above sense. A prediction doesn't have to exactly match observations to be useful, but that the theory produces a prediction which _could_ be tested against.

Even flat-earth theory makes useful predictions - albeit already proven false as time and time again, it predicts the wrong results.

What isn't useful is an unfalsifiable theory, which means the predictions it makes is not able to be tested, or the results of such a test could be construed to match if you squint a bit. A theory like creationism, for example.

I am a bit confused by your comment. I'm not sure if you agree with gliop or not. I am simply saying that Newtonian gravity is useful (in pretty much any sense) and that it did not match all experiments. Particularly in the orbit of Mercury could not be explained.

> Even flat-earth theory makes useful predictions - albeit already proven false as time and time again, it predicts the wrong results.

I definitely agree usefulness is independent of fitting experimental data. gliop would seem to say flat earth theories are not useful.

I don't think the value of a theory can be evaluated in isolation. It can only be evaluated relative to its competition. During its time, Newtonian gravity, even if it didn't perfectly fit all data, was still superior to its competition on an aggregate of the 3 criteria mentioned. Only once Einstein's theories were put forward, were we able to replace Newtonian gravity with a superior alternative.

More output means more bugs.

Personas are a massive improvement over designing for yourself or worse designing for what's fun to design.

Are they?

If you design for yourself at least you are using a real person. Personas are invariably about the same as designing for what's fun.

Loud restaurants do that intentionally to scare off old unsexy people and to make customers leave sooner for faster turnaround.

Netflix does captioning very well.

If you read the original C&D they clearly did not just want to stop use of the trademark (or if they did, they certainly claimed otherwise, and got the extension should down vs renamed). It's nice that they could be convinced otherwise, but they clearly complained about the nature of the extension, not just the name.

Kotlin is a light syntax for a coding style. It's as easy for a Java dev to learn Kotlin as it is to learn Spring or Hibernate or whatever library or framework the team at your new job uses