Humanius

Short answer: It’s because of binary.
Computers are very good at calculating with powers of two, and because of that a lot of computer concepts use powers of two to make calculations easier.

1024 = 2¹⁰

Edit: Oops… It’s 2¹⁰, not 2⁷
Sorry y’all… 😅

I can mostly find myself agreeing (or at least not having big issues with) with all of the points, except for that one.
Let’s just hope they mean requiring a best effort, rather than outright preventing it in the first place.

Since the article doesn’t actually say what the rules and regulations are, here is a link:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think that retroactively applies to things that happened before the ToS got updated.

So 23andMe would still be open to lawsuits for the previous breach

As someone who works in the tech industry and has used AI tools (or more accurately machine learning models), I do think it is overrated.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it can be useful, just that it’s not going to live up to the immense hype surrounding it right now.

Por que no los dos?

Just wait till Musk learns about banking regulations.
He’s already complaining about the EU regulations on social media, but they nothing compared to what banks have to deal with.

In other words, the price of the Pixel 8 Pro will be higher in order to include a smart watch that you may or may not even want

Unity walked back from charging per installation earlier today. Now they will be charging per device it is installed on.
It doesn’t solve the core problem, but it at least prevents install-bombing like you are suggesting

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-backtracks-slightly-on-plans-to-charge-developers-for-game-installs

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-reveals-plans-to-charge-per-game-install-drawing-criticism-from-development-community

Other articles I have been reading on the topic do mention it:

Unity has also clarified the changes are “not retroactive or perpetual”, noting it will only “charge once for a new install” made after 1st January 2024. However, while it won’t be charging for previously made installs, fees do indeed apply to all games currently on the market, meaning should any existing player of an older game that exceeds Unity’s various thresholds decide to re-install it after 1st January, a charge will still be made.

When I say that it applies retroactively, I mean that it applies to games released in the past.
It’s true that they are not retroactively charging devs for past downloads. That would have been even worse.

I’m no legal expert, and I have no familiarity with Unity’s licensing terms. So I didn’t want to outright call what they are doing illegal.
For all I know they did technically have a clause in their licensing agreement that allows them to do this. But that wouldn’t make it any less of a scum move imo.

It’ll be interesting to see what the lawyers will make of this.

From what I understand this change will retroactively apply to games released in the past as well. I think that’s a rather scummy move on Unity’s part. “I’ve altered the deal. Pray I don’t alter it further.”

And it’s not like game devs have been using a free product. They already pay for it through expensive licenses per developer.

If the justification on Unity’s part is true, that for each install of a Unity game the runtime environment needs to be downloaded from their servers, then maybe they should look into fixing that rather than nickle and diming their customers for each individual install (customers in this case being the game developers)

I’m currently using it as a network printer via CUPS (so yes, Linux)
But to my knowledge that still requires the appropriate drivers to be installed on Windows 🤔

So what does this mean for my old laser printer dating back to the early 2000s? Will I not be able to use that anymore?
It’s still perfectly functional, so it would be a bit of a shame and a waste of money to have to replace it.

That’s a valid concern, but it also assumes that the requirements for apps will go up in a similar trend as they did in the previous 8-10 years.
I’m not entirely convinced that they will. Smartphones 10 years ago were still very much a developing product category, whereas I think today they are generally matured.

Just look at laptops as a comparison. When they were still rapidly developing, an eight year old laptop would have pretty much been obsolete. But today an eight year old laptop will still serve most people perfectly fine.

It won’t be top of the line, but I don’t really see why it wouldn’t still be usable at least.
And even if the person buying the phone today won’t consider it usable for their needs in eight years time, they can still sell it to someone who doesn’t have a need for a high spec’ed phone.

I think you can look at it similarly to how one would look at an 8 year old laptop today.
A decently spec’ed laptop from 2015 is still very usable today, as long as you keep your expectations reasonable.

Pretty sure the “right to be forgotten” already exists legally in a couple of places.
Google doesn’t provide an easy dashboard to request link deletion, but they do have to comply in places like the EU and UK (if I recall correctly)

Firstly, I’m happy to see Sync return.
I made sure to subscribe to help make developing the app financially viable.

Secondly… With the Sync beta just going live, I’m already running into my very first bugs.
What would be the appropriate place to report these bugs?

Edit: My question has already been answered by OP:

Oh and please note that bugs should be reported in #sync-support-and-bugs in the discord: https://discord.gg/qYWxqva

I’d prefer it if my nuclear waste doesn’t drip into the ocean, please /s

They don’t care whether you call it Facebook or Meta.
All they care about is that enough people were talking about the name change, so that they were distracted from the real controversy (which is the “Facebook Papers” revalations)