Australian man successfully receives titanium heart after 6-hour operation
www.abc.net.au
A New South Wales man with heart failure lived with the artificial heart for over 100 days while waiting to be matched with a heart donor.

In short:

A mechanical heart has been implanted in a New South Wales man who was experiencing severe heart failure.

He has become the first person in the world to be discharged from hospital with the titanium heart.

What’s next?

Doctors say the invention will likely be an alternative for donor heart transplants in the future.

      • @GonzakoEnglish
        2•2 hours ago

        what’s the particular license about?

        • Cosmic ClericEnglish
          1•2 minutes ago

          what’s the particular license about?

          These links can explain it better than I could …

          By default, everything you write, from a novel to an Internet forum shitpost, is not only copyrighted by you but also “all rights reserved.”

          What that guy is doing is (a) making his writings more available for reuse than they would be otherwise, and (b) making a point about how fucked-up it is that corporations treat stuff posted to social media as if it were a free-for-all they could use however they want.

          the license is actually a Creative Commons license for Non-Commercial uses. Creative Commons is a copyleft license that’s “free to use with some restrictions”. Mostly used in art, literature, audio, and film, for my part I’m using it to license my comments. Anybody can cite with attribution, but commercial use is forbidden by the license.

          The why: I just don’t like non-opensource commercial ventures. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, and so on are harmful in many ways.

          Enforcement and legality: Microsoft’s Github CoPilot (a large language model / “AI”) was trained on copyrighted text source code. A few licenses clearly state that derivatives should also be opensource, which CoPilot is not. So there is a big lawsuit against it. Many artists, non-programmer authors, musicians, and others are also unhappy that AI was trained on their copyrighted works and have sued for damages. Until these cases make it out of court, it will not be clear if adding a license to comments could even jeopardize commercial AI vendors.

          Anti Commercial-AI license

          This link shows that ProPublica also licenses their content here on Lemmy.

          I want to license my content to be available to non-profit open-source, and restricted for for-profit.

          I understand that its not my responsibility to enforce laws, and that just because laws are not enforced currently that I should still be able to avail myself to them, as well as that enforcement of the laws may not be happen currently, but that laws will catch up to the reality on the ground.

          Also, that laws trump ToS’s. And “Safe Harbor” laws that corporate social media companies/sites protects themselves with state that we own our content, and not them. And that they can’t use a ToS to strip away our ownership, and hence, our content licensing.

          Finally, if the license link looks weird, it may be that your app/client does not support Lemmy.World’s formatting text. You would have to speak with the devs of the product you use to view Lemmy to get that corrected.

          A mods response to the usage of a license to a third-party.

          This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0