So one of his examples is that he bought stolen goods and when they were returned to the original owner he felt he deserved them as well? If he didn’t submit a charge back he’s complicit in supporting this fraud. The vendor should have offered to sell him a copy for the price he paid to the scammer instead.

I tried Jellyfin out on my most recent build - don’t think it’s quite as good as Plex so far. Still using it though - I think either is perfectly fine for a simple home media server.

I’m not sure they’d want the legal hassle.

As long as Steam allows skins trading these sites will exist. I can’t see them removing this feature from their community because of activity off their platform.

Locking a trading account and nuking the inventory just means that one site will shut down - the operator will likely just set up a new one and a while bunch of users will be angry at Valve.

If enough money is at stake Valve might even find themselves sued by the site operators. “Tortious Interference” is what it’s called here.

If consenting adults enter into agreements outside of Steam, what business is it of Valve’s to interfere?

If you outsource your work, you outsource your reputation. BYD is absolutely responsible for the conditions of the workers.

Any possibility, no matter how small, becomes a certainty when dealing with infinity. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this.

Why would you need to buy your own crypto? The only purpose of these trades is to mislead others.

Seems like he’s saying they are. If they see something criminal on the phone then it’s not an unreasonable seizure.

More likely to be Chinese Yuan. The symbol is similar. About 6 Yuan to the dollar I think.

The signing ensures the integrity of the data, whether using a public block chain or not.

The signed document can be distributed as widely as you’d like - it doesn’t need to be attached to a block chain to do this.

Sure, there’s always going to be outliers. Most people live and work in the same metropolitan area though - they’re not driving 50,000km+ a year. Besides, having a vehicle with 5 times the effective lifetime is going to be a big win regardless of how much you drive it.

I’ve always heard them described as seagull managers. Screams loudly, shits everywhere, leaves.

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

The UNIX philosophy isn’t about having only one way to do things - it’s about being able to use tools together. The deliberately simple interface is what makes it so powerful - almost any existing too can become part of a pipeline. It’s adaptable.

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there’s nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.

I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?

Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

Braking does not increase range. Regenerative braking reduces the losses involved, it doesn’t eliminate them. Your last sentence makes it sounds like not braking enough will lower your range - that isn’t the case.

And then trying to hold the card issuer liable rather than your cousin…

I don’t think so. Those users had opted in to share information within a certain group. They’ve already accepted the risk of sharing info with someone who might be untrustworthy.

Plenty of other systems do the same thing. I can share the list of games on my Steam account with my friends - the fact that a hacker might break into one of their accounts and access my data doesn’t mean that this sharing of information is broken by design.

If you choose to share your secrets with someone, you accept the risk that they may not protect them as well as you do.

There may be other reasons to criticise 23andMe’s security, but this isn’t a broken design.