Then on the back is a story about 3 pilots asking the tower for a speed check.

deleted by creator

You still pay the cost of driving a car a couple thousand km though, right?

Are we going to clutch our pearls over work-from-home inequality while we ignore the even greater inequality of pay differences?

Jobs are different. Pay is different. Those who can work from home should have an option to; this will help them, and the environment, and those who do have to travel to work. If I have a job that requires me to travel, such as physical maintenance, working in retail, etc, I welcome a smooth commute because half the people are working from home.

“Intellectual property” protection has gone too far. It should not be illegal to repair your own devices, it should not be illegal to reverse engineer and break encryption on your own devices. Intellectual property should be inseparable from public interest responsibilities. If you buy a movie (and have proof of such), then whoever owns the IP for the movie should be required to provide you with additional copies, and if the IP gets lost in the legal weeds, then the movie is no longer copyrighted and people can copy and distribute it freely.

As a society, we have no interest in making your rich just because you’re a passive owner, you provide no benefit to society and society should provide no benefit to you. However, if you create a popular movie, and you distribute it and you take responsibility for ensuring that those who have purchased the movie are able to view it freely, then you are rendering a service to society and deserve to profit.

You’re using what people usually call “the information super highway”.

You have to buy new “activators” every 30 uses

“Please drink…”

Who knows the rest?

This confuses me. That’s why I only use fairandheight.

The Colorado lower court also found it was an insurrection, but that an insurrection didn’t disqualify a person from running for President (because of some very specific wording in the constitution).

So both sides in the case appealed and now here we are.

I forgot what it was called, but someone create an encrypted file system where you could never be certain all files were decrypted. You could enter one password and files A B and C would be revealed and accessible, then you could enter another password and files D E and F would be revealed, and again, another password would reveal file G, etc.

The file system was just a big blob of seemingly random bytes, but when processed with the right password, certain patterns would be revealed, those patterns being the files. This brought with it the possibility that files would be lost, because when writing files with password 1, files encrypted with password 2 might be overwritten. Several copies of each file were stored to protect against this, but you could still lose files.

There are some philosophical / legal issues with such a file system, because you can never prove that you’ve decrypted all the files. If prosecutors wanted to claim that you had more files on the filesystem, there’s no way you could disprove it, because you can never prove that you’ve decrypted everything. Hopefully people would be considered innocent until proven guilty, but believing the law always works that way is naive.

EDIT: It’s called deniable encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption

I hope this harms OpenAI in their lawsuits somehow. Their argument of “we can train on the output of others, but nobody can train on our output” has no moral foundation. Pick a lane.

You can click the three dots on recommendations and there is a “not interested” option.

That’s a chemical!

I hear you. Please download this app, click yes to all permission requests, then you can order using the design our team of highly paid (but non-technical) designers have been working on for the last 2 years.

How does that work?

Like, let’s say I’m born in Oregon, I live my whole life in Oregon, I get to vote for national representative and Oregon representatives. I set up a server in Oregon, my server responds to electronic requests that it receives from an Oregon company which I connect to with a wire that goes through Oregon.

Then I get sued for breaking Texas laws. At what point did I become subject to Texas law?

At best, at best, you could say that I’m doing “interstate commerce” which is governed by the federal government, not state law.

I’ve said this before. They are targeting the wrong layer!

They want to force websites to be neutral while allowing the internet providers to block and shape traffic however they want.

Force ISPs to allow access to all websites - good

Force ISPs to allow anyone to host a website at home - good

Force AWS to allow anyone to pay for and host websites on their infrastructure - probably good, but we’re approaching the line

Force websites to host content they don’t want to host - bad

I wonder if the new Twitch competitor that rises in Korea will get the TikTok treatment and our government will just ban it by name?

Send their legal team an email telling them you’re going to update the terms unless you hear from them.

Also, send a bunch of irrelevant shit about what your doing and thinking about and video games you’re playing first, they’ll probably block your email address and then wont see the legally important email.

So, our main interactions happened in the past, your fault and abuse of me happened in the past, and now, in the present, you can slip a little “go out of your way or the legal terms governing our interactions in the past will be altered” clause in an email, and it’s all legal?

(Hold on, let me try applying a rule of thumb that helps me answer legal questions like this: Would this help the rich and powerful maintain riches and power?… Yes. I think the answer to my question above is yes.)

I’d argue the the interactions and faults of the past should be governed by the agreement we had in the past.

Was he a Go developer before generics? Published 4000 versions of the library, one for each type.