This comment is copyrighted by me and licensed to the public under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. If you intend to use this comment for commercial purposes, you must secure a commercial license from me, which will cost you a lot of money. If you violate the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 without securing an appropriate license, I will send my army of lawyers that I totally definitely have to defend my copyright against you in court.
Apple Security Bounty awards may not be paid to you if you are in any U.S. embargoed countries or on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals, the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person’s List or Entity List, or any other restricted party lists.
Kaspersky can whine all they want. Russia is embargoed. They’re not getting their money.
Kaspersky is a good company doing good work in the cyber security space. Unfortunately, because of the embargo, they may have to turn to the black market to sell future exploits. Or maybe not; I’m not totally sure what kind of ethical standards they have.
Nvidia is in a great spot for the AI bubble.
It drives up prices now, but when the bubble eventually burst, data centers are still going to need accelerators for more viable compute tasks.
Absolutely the most robust business in the bubble.
It’s honestly wild that the core feature of Bartender (hiding icons in the menu bar) isn’t builtin to macOS.
There are still issues with WearOS, but I think some of that is hardware. Last I heard, Qualcomm’s wearable SoCs were trash, but Samsung is in a good position since they have both the SoC fab and make the watch itself.
Many industries are shifting to a model where Android is the de facto OS for consumer-facing interactions. It’s not well optimized outside of phones yet, but it is rapidly improving. Many cars run Android now, for example.
I’m moderately optimistic about the next generation of WearOS devices.
Unfortunately, I think it’s been demonstrated that OpenAI will feed your data into their training pipeline whether you like it or not. They did this with YouTube. And they demonstrated this with Scarlett Johanson. (Even if they used a voice actor instead of actually scraping voice clips of her, it’s still unethical.)
So we knew they’d just scrape these articles anyway. This way, at least the publications get paid.
Fine tuning a general TTS model on a specific custom voice doesn’t require as much data as you think it does.
The hard part is building the foundational model that can be easily fine tuned. And OpenAI has already done that.
In the US, I pay $90/month ($1,080/year) for 1 Gbps internet.
That’s it. No TV. No landline. Just Internet.
Munich is cheaper for Google than literally any city in the US.
Software developer compensations are insanely high in the US, at least at these multinational corporations.
Compared to software developer compensation in California, Germany is waaaay cheaper.
Heck, Munich is cheaper for Google than literally any of their US offices. You would make more by working for Google in Raleigh, North Carolina than in Munich.
The only European city that pays as well as the US is Zürich. The pay is really good there, about the same as Seattle.
What is this?
I use the current gen Chromecast. Never encountered this issue.
I’ve got a bunch of apps.
In the case of Google, the trade off is compensation.
You can work for for Google in NYC and make $300k+ per year, or work for Google in London and make half as much at best.
It’s the USA.
Yes, they can just fire people.
Right. But there is no copyright infringement in an NES emulator, as long as no copyrighted games are distributed.
Emulation itself is not copyright infringement.
The recent issue with the Switch emulator was that they were distributing encryption keys along with the emulator. That wasn’t a copyright issue (encryption keys are not expression, therefore not copyrightable) but a CFAA issue. See other comments.
None of that applies to the NES.
I mean, it’s GPL code.
Anyone could just upload it, possibly with branding changes if “GBA4iOS” a trademark, as long as they publish the source code with their changes
An emulator, even a paid one, would be totally legal in the US as long as:
It does not use any patented technologies. I’m not sure if Nintendo has any patents in the emulation space, but regardless the GBA is so simple that it wouldn’t require patented techniques to emulate.
It does not contain any proprietary (copyrighted) code. On more modern consoles, this would include the BIOS or Firmware files. Does the GBA even need something like that?
Number 1 is a non-issue for a GBA emulator. Number 2 is more tricky, but it’s always possible to reverse engineer and reimplement the firmware. That’s protected by the Compaq v. IBM case.
The recent drama with the Switch emulator is that they violated the second principle.
Even if they were such a thing as a cookie banner law, and there is none, companies in the USA would not have to comply in their country.
It would be only for Europe.
This is a pretty naive take.
If you operate in Europe, you must comply with GDPR. To selectively show a cookie banner, you have to be able to identify the (location of) the user.
It is totally reasonable for a company to operate in Europe but not wish to implement a full identity or location detection system. And so they just show the opt-in prompt to everyone.
And you can’t just implement that by using the browser’s location API, because European users can totally choose to not share their location with you using that API. But you still need to comply for those users.
There has been for years a proposal for a standard, designed in 2009 (!), still available in all the popular web browsers (except safari) that can make for a seamless experience: the DNT header.
The diversion about the DNT header is irrelevant.
Firstly, it is not codified in law that the DNT header is canonical. What if a user forgets to check the box? What should the default be? What kind of UX should be presented to users? This stuff needs to be spelled out in law for DNT to be a valid way to express opt-in.
Secondly, it’s not a robust per-site permission. Browsers only let you set it globally.
Thirdly, it’s actually bad for privacy. By making your headers different from the majority, you are easier to fingerprint. This is why Safari does not implement it.
Be mad at companies
I get the spirit of the article.
But the GDPR has pushed the problem of consent to the users, and they haven’t done anything to make this easy or convenient. Therefore cookie banners are inevitable. Like, you can’t blame companies for acting in their own self interest; that is entirely counter productive.
The EU needs to solve this.
First, go after the data brokerage industry so that it is no longer profitable to sell user data.
Second, regulate how websites can seek permission. Ideally by specifying a consent API and requiring browsers to implement a sane UX.
It will be much more productive to try to solve this with the handful of Browser vendors than trying to regulate each and every consent banner.
But nowhere close to the human eye’s dynamic range…
It’s private equity. So presumably they have more discretion around buy backs than public stocks.
They can’t even be punished.
robots.txtis just a convention, not a regulation. It’s totally not enforceable.The only legal framework we have is copyright law. Those who oppose this behavior will have to demonstrate copyright violation, and that may be difficult to do since the law hasn’t caught up.