OsaErisXero

I’m excited for this to start triggering anti-trust legislation

Please no

Specifically that person probably contracts a law firm to handle the bureaucratic aspect, on an ongoing basis and a support team to handle low level issues.

Sort of. It asks as part of a series of questions on first boot when you sign up for a new account at the same time, but it defaults to yes, so idk if you would count that as opt-out or not.

Can’t imagine how this could be perceived as anything but retaliation for the EU daring to attempt to regulate Apple

If ace combat has taught me anything, it’s that there’s no reason we can’t do both

This is not precisely accurate. These are individually addressible and can be commanded to change what’s displayed based on any arbitrary input, such as detection of a critical mass of apple products in that part of the store, or a device which is signed into a store account on the store app, accurate down to about 3 meters last time I looked at the state of presence analytics tech. So you absolutely could have 20% higher prices follow a person around a store if you wanted to.

Won’t somebody please think of the shareholders

I would imagine a production version of this would have predefined cut lines to pull a chunk out for working on stuff in or under the foundation

Well, so much for that

Nova got bought? Is that what happened to them? :(

None that I’m aware of, but for a copyright to be asserted in the US a human must be associated with it as a consequence of the monkey selfie case. My reading is that this would cover the edge case of an anonymous, unknown poster submitting the work, allowing Cara to act as the default rights holder unless otherwise asserted by a person or user.

No, it doesn’t. It states that the copyrighted works are the property of Cara and/or the artist who created the Works, except where otherwise noted. This specifically would cover cases where someone attempts to claim that a Work they found on Cara isn’t copyrighted because a copyright notice wasn’t explicitly stated, and doesn’t make explicit claims over the ownership of any arbitrary Work. For it to work in the way you’re claiming, the “or” cannot be present as it being there implies the existence of Works on the site which Cara does not have property rights to. Who actually possesses the property rights to any given Work is left, apparently intentionally, ambiguous.

See, the problem is that this all would have required retaining all those expensive engineers that were either terminated or bailed the second he got hands on the platform.

male’); DROP TABLE Gender;–

There was one just a few weeks ago with Helldivers 2 and requiring PSN accounts on pc even if you don’t live in a country with PSN

The only change I’ve seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people’s willingness to tolerate these people. They’ve always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.

So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.

Peering isn’t Sender Pays, Peering is “I’ll carry your traffic if you’ll carry mine”, with the understanding that when there’s an imbalance in one direction or another that an exchange of some sort is had, be it dollars, bandwidth limits, or similar. In this case, where C interconnects with A which interconnects with B, if C’s traffic is so substantial that it’s saturating the crosslink between A and B, A would need to evaluate whether their peering agreement with C means that C needs to be paying for the network upgrade, or if there’s enough traffic moving from A’s network into C’s to offset that, and that the interconnect between A and B is the root issue. In your example, rather than paying more into ISPs and, essentially, indirectly funding US network backbone infrastructure upgrades across the board, they solved their problem with cache servers that they handed out like candy to avoid their costs to C sky rocketing. G solved this problem by buying a bunch of dark fiber which was laid on spec by contractors and started peering directly with the Tier 1 providers, dramatically reducing their cost delta.

Where Korea’s system differs is that in traditional Tier 1 peering, as I understand it, T’s ISP (call them P) should be using some of the money they get from T to pay Q and R for the excess traffic of their customer, but instead Q and R were, per the government, allowed to also charge T for delivery of their packets, resulting in T having to pay both on the up and downlink side, charging them twice for the same bit. T, rather than attempt what G did, told Korea to pound sand and exited the market.

The correct answer in that scenario is C should be paying for it, as in the stated scenario C’s traffic would be exceeding the peering arrangement with B and/or A, but there were/are a number of reasons that breaks down in the real world.

Not to any meaningful degree. You’re better off at Vintage Stock tbh