We're two years in, and so far the IHU have a perfect record of not being able to publish anything even remotely correct. And I use the term "publish" very loosely. Empirically ignoring whatever's coming from there is the safe bet.

The line "with the added trust of Microsoft." is particularly funny.

I don't know who that is, but screw that person and screw spotify?
If people use the random play button, it's because they want to.

Sure, let's review the general experience when pinterest results shows up and push the other results into oblivion:

• - 20 reposts of the same image withtout any name, source or context
• - 20 reposts of the same image with slightly different resolutions and watermark added/removed randomly with the same context as before
• - 20 reposts of the thumbnail of the original image with no source either

There, you can now start your journey. Note that half the time I get pinterest results in google its when looking for copyrighted content, which is blatantly reposted a zillion times with zero form of attribution.

large scale scam and money laundering. Boom.

Please, no "go France". Depending on *how* you do it, ripping an audio CD could also be illegal here if there's any kind of protection. It would be up to a judge to determine if you circumvented it or not (no matter how easily it is to circumvent these protections, sometimes without even knowing they're in place).

The recent extension of the "private copy exemption tax" was done in full knowledge that all commercial media have some kind of protection that actually renders them illegal to copy. While the sentence in the summary is true, it's meaningless if everything's protected. And seeing the extent some streaming services are going to make it harder to copy their content, it's not going to change anytime soon.

It is legal *as long as you don't circumvent technical protection measures*. It's the same as it always was. And nowadays *everything* have some kind of protection that qualifies: bluray, online services, etc.
Even (commercial) audio CD and DVD technically have some protaction built-in and even though it's useless, I'm sure some petty people would like to bring you to court for copying any of them onto another media.
The only thing you could really legally copy is non-protected media (good luck finding that in a commercial offering) or your own stuff. The private copying exemption tax always has been a fraud.

This. The story could easily be turned around blaming google from provoking unwanted traffic and enabling DOS on competitors.

Sure, collect the data you really need.
For an offline audio editor? That's nothing. Boom, problem solved.

That's the important part. Chrome uses what's available. On my "beefy" system, it takes a lot, but most of it is cache. It doesn't prevent other applications from taking up memory. On a work computer with very little RAM (4GB), it took way less and leave the machine perfectly usable for other tasks beside browsing.
This race to "I use less memory on a benchmark" serves no purpose aside from calling one piece of software "bloated" when in the end it does nothing wrong.

Really? You think when someone comes in your office and telling you out of the blue "this must be ready on monday", you're the one to blame when it's not ready on monday?

They got messages from "gamers", as in, people that would not buy much from them anyway but are numerous. So obviously they pull the game for everyone that might be interested in it.
GOG and CDPR seems to have made a nice 180 in the recent month in terms of communication. Either they're complete spineless idiots, or they believe that all the good things people used to think about them shields them from everything.
If you want a good joke, you can look at GOG twitter's account description. "truly gamer friendly". Yeah, right. In the meantime there are tools to batch download all your games from gog if you're interested.

Maybe they should release the game and address this as a patch later on.

Don't worry, this will be the full package: broken release, day 1 patch that address things that should never have got through QA, essential patch comming weeks later despite the rushed release, etc.

A non-paranoid, non conspirationist option would be that deploying software updates is delayed until proper testing can be done. Gmail have *a lot* of users, and it's very probable not everyone even uses the same gmail, because of stuff like A/B testing and other complications that can arise with such a large architecture. Maintaining this mess usually isn't done in a "I see something bad, I fix it" fashion but more in a "we've got a batch of things to do, let's lump them together in a milestone" kind of way.
Of course security issue should be treated faster, but it's also possible that Google used that to monitor who tried to abuse it. There's a large set of options that can explain the delay. The exploit being released for anyone to use makes is more important to fix now.
That's a somewhat naive view on things, and the reality is probably more complex, but as a software developer I see some reasons to not deploy a fix ASAP. It's even possible the fix they deployed *now* is not the final one but only a quick mitigation.