r00ty

Then I suggest they use an XNOR pointer instead! Checkmate patent trolls!

Huh. I am sure you could search for individual books. For sure you could do it by goodreads ID I think? Yes, adding an entire author as the primary way to do things is a bit much for some. I know for sure I have managed to do individual books before now.

It’s a real shame because Readarr did work and they really just needed to fix their own metadata servers. No? Or were there other problems I’m not aware of?

Yeah, no prices. I move on. Same with job ads, no salary no application. If I get an intrusive ad, I’m not buying that product, I’ll deliberately seek out another brand in fact.

Is that a weird attitude to have? I thought it just made sense. We shouldn’t be rewarding this BS.

I’m wondering what combination of features would use 25w on a phone. On flagship models the battery would last less than an hour at that consumption (and might even melt :P).

Your point still stands by the way, sensors take next to nothing in terms of power. I guess the point of the article is perhaps the processing of the signals is more efficient with this hybrid chip? Again though in real terms it’s a nothing-burger in terms of power consumption.

I don’t think there’s ground even for an arrest in my (non professional mind you) opinion.

The act requires that a message be sent by any electronic means (including transmission) so, this meets that part. But the message must be indecent or grossly offensive. I would argue some pictures of a couple of buddies together shouldn’t be grossly offensive.

Unless it’s the police’s view that it is offensive because of what Trump may, or may not have done with said now deceased criminal friend. In which case, they should be arresting someone else too.

Yes, it’s a common police tactic to make arrests around the time of a visit like this. But, they really do need to be grounded in a realistic application of the law.

I really feel like you should read my comment more carefully. I’m not defending them. I’m describing their rationale. My very last sentence should make clear I am not one of the normal users that will be happy and fine with this. I’m typing this, on Linux, right now.

Normal people don’t care, and they would be happy with the thin veil of extra security they will gain (and be told they’re going to gain), in exactly the same way the sales of the top tier mobile phones when they’re boot locked and sideload locked will not dip in any meaningful way.

Well, it’s for a good reason in their view. Also, pretty much everyone here is not the normal computer user. The normal computer user is only dimly aware they use something called windows. The use a web browser and perhaps 3 other programs on their PC. They’re going to be happy when they’re told that having a walled garden improves their computer’s security.

We are the minority.

It’s not “arbitrary” I’d say. It’s part of a long term plan to probably push a fully trusted platform. Yes, so they can ID you by hardware etc but also lock down driver installs and maybe even software installs one day.

It wasn’t canon in my case, but I found with other network printers on Linux that not bothering with “auto finding” and just putting the IP address in manually (give fixed devices fixed IPs on your router to make this kind of thing easier). Most desktop environments have a printer tool that should allow manually adding a printer.

I have to say with the work provided HP PoS I last had, it was equally as difficult to get windows to talk to it, to be fair.

On the one-hand I think it would be similar to how usenet works now for binaries. That is, once notified under DMCA (for the USA) and likely similar laws in other western countries you’re duty bound to remove it.

I don’t know if there would be other problems with hosting files when you don’t know what they are. Also in terms of defence against DMCA, how would the original file uploader defend against it when you can’t know what the file is without the key. Person A reports file xyz as infringing their copyright, Uploader B says it doesn’t. Normally you could re-instate it and let the two parties fight it out in court. But, I wonder how it would play out when you hosting the file don’t even know what it is.

I’m really not sure how it would really stack up against copyright law in general and more specifically laws for truly illegal content (e.g. CSAM), since you could be hosting that and never know.

Seems a bit more of a risky venture to me and more a question for an actually qualified legal advisor I’m afraid.

Well, they were quite literally compiling all the worst behaviours of modern subscription services and applying it to the medical field. I guess the sad thing is that it could really happen one day.

I would say each of the things that they applied has happened on a service somewhere before (just perhaps not all on a single one). It’s fiction uncomfortably close to reality.

Incoming Spotify premium plus subscription tier. With lossless audio. And then shortly after some previously premium tier features to go plus. Then ads appear on the premium, I mean basic tier (priced at the old premium price).

I’ve said this before. The UK online safety act if they enforce it hard against fediverse instances, it will be the end of federation, for UK users without a VPN at least. Because it puts too much on the shoulders of small site operators.

In this case though, the exception most countries have for site operators to avoid being responsible for their user’s posts is usually reliant on action being taken when content on your site is reported to you. There isn’t really an exception for saying “Umm, wasn’t from my site mate. Go follow the trail and get the original guy”. The argument will be, the site you control has the content, remove it.

In the UK in the 1990s there was a court case [1] that might even form the part of the case law behind the publisher exception. In that case the claimant stated that the ISP was alerted to forged usenet articles (usenet was pretty much a good analogue for modern federated content) that he believed defamed him. They did not remove the articles (presumably because they did not originate on their usenet server, by their users I am not sure). He sued them and the court ruled in his favour. There’s more nuance, but the take away is pretty much what we got in the law created later.

Since then we have enacted the Defamation Act 2013 [2], which has section 5 that gives SOME exemption to operators of websites that allow posts by third parties (that pretty much covers the fediverse). That makes it clear that if the claimant cannot identify the user (which would be the case for 99% of threadiverse users), and if you are informed about the content and do not take action, then you may be held accountable for the defamation. Now that just means that if they tell you X post is defamatory or should be removed for another legal reason, if you refuse to do so in a reasonable time period, then you can be held responsible and treated as the publisher of that message. So if it were to breach some law, they could sue you for it as if you posted it yourself. Which is kinda why I’d say just remove it if there’s any doubt at all. I’m not a legal expert, but that’s how I read the act.

I’m not sure how it works elsewhere. I live in the UK. But generally the rules are somewhat similar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_Internet_Service [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5

Well, legally there’s no reason to comply. At the same time I personally have no skin in the game and deleting the account locally won’t do much (unless you purge their content too).

I think the only way to be sure, is to try to take more than 100ml past airport security.

So, here’s what I would do. I would comply (you should be able to delete the local instance of that account). But I’d also reply pointing out that it’s a mirror of the real account hosted at lea.pet and their real beef is with them, and should that user interact with or generate content pushed to you, the local copy would be re-created.

Keep a copy of the email you send (because it’s highly likely a human doesn’t monitor that mailbox) and then move on with your life. If a real person then wants to complain you can just forward the email you sent and tell them the same still applies.

It’s automated and the email indicates as such.

I think this is a real problem for the fediverse. Because I cannot imagine that ofcom will accept that “the home instanx should have moderated that” will be a defence. And here (and mayve for you) only I am moderating the content on my own instance. It’s not possible to moderate all the remote communities I carry.

Like I say. Once I see action (it will start with warnings) against smaller instances I’ll just lock things down to myself and existing users. But it will destroy the threadiverse in the UK.

From my end as a tiny instance with virtually no users I’m watching how enforcement goes on small systems like these.

If they start sending warnings I’ll just make browsing content required an account and close sign ups.

I’ve already gone through and ensured none of the communities carried has the NSFW tag. But that’s not really much in terms of protection.

If they start getting around to us I think it’ll mean fediverse users in the UK will either need to run their own instance or use a vpn. No way hobbyists can contract age verification.

I think the issue is that there’s usually competing targets here. From the top they wanted to see use of copilot. But direct reports likely expected the same performance.

So are you going to a) do it the way you’ve done it for 10 years and know will deliver on time or b) ask hal9000 for help potentially actually slowing you down, at least initially.

I think there’s gains to be made for some jobs in some cases with ai. But most people probably just got on with their work.