The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement

However regrettable, it's easy to understand how that can happen.

The jury could have just been told testimony that "we saw xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was seeding our movie" (with screenshots of MPAA's torrent client showing a seeder at that address and the packets they got from that address correctly matching the torrent's checksum). Meanwhile, Cox wouldn't have any evidence refuting it (even though the assertion isn't proven; the "screenshots" could have been made in GIMP for all we know). And then the jury might have ruled based on "preponderance" of evidence.

Kind of like 3 cops saying "the perp resisted arrest" and the perp saying "no I didn't" and a criminal jury (where the bar is much higher) still deciding that the perp resisted arrest. Sigh. You know that happens.

Had Cox ratted their customer out (or gotten a DMCA counternotice from them), then the customer could have been sued instead, and raised doubts by saying "I have an open wifi" or something like that. But Cox didn't, and they certainly aren't going to say "we have an open wifi" since they're in the network business so of course they don't offer free networking to strangers. It sounds like a difficult situation for Cox.

The story is light on details so I ass/u/me some things. The copyright infringement was likely due to torrents, i.e. from the internet's point of view, addresses owned by Cox were publishing/hosting content (under the hood: really Cox's customers seeding torrents).

So if I were an MPAA/RIAA -member company, I'd send Cox a DMCA notice ("Cox, stop sharing my copyrighted work") which really means "Cut that customer off or otherwise make them stop, or else get a DMCA counternotice from them, so I can go after them instead of you." And if that's what happened, then it sounds like Cox said no (didn't make it stop and also didn't pass the buck to their customers. So they sued Cox instead of Cox's customers.

But that's based on assumptions and speculation, hence my question. But yes, I know what a DMCA notice is and I think that mechanism was likely in involved at some point in the story.

It's unclear from the articles whether or not this happened: did the record labels send DMCA notices to Cox, which Cox blew off (thereby becoming liable in place of the original suspected infringer)? Or did the record labels just sue 'em first?

Prior to 1998 they wouldn't have been liable (just like Western Digital and Seagate aren't liable for whatever I may be suspected of doing) but DMCA makes hosting services (and networks? hmm...) a special case, unlike power utilities, computer equipment manufacturers, etc.

Based on what evidence? Faith in Musk?

Over one billion miles driven using FSD.

Looking that that graph is should be obvious where it is going, and how soon.

The last I heard about the taxi idea, they mentioned they were considering letting people send out their cars as taxis when not in use, and thus owning a Tesla could actually make you money.

That does depend on true self driving to work but it seems like they are pretty close now.

A fact which renders these trackers completely useless as anti-theft devices

Not really, even if a thief is alerted something is being tracked if they can't find the tracker they will throw out the object they stole... which you can then recover. and also potentially get video evidence from around where it was dumped to ID the thief if they still have something from your backpack...

I have a hidden compartment in my backpack where I often put cash so I very much would be happy to recover even just the empty backpack without contents.

Or if you had an AirTag hidden in a car they might just ditch the car rather than take it to a chop shop, and you can at least find where it was ditched.

Also did you forget "unintentional theft" exists, where for example an airline rather than flying your bags to your destination, takes them elsewhere... and when that happens sometimes they have no clue where the bags are. If you have a tracker, you can tell them what city and facility your bags are in, and even play a sound to help locate them.

AirTags (and the new Android form) are incredibly useful even with tracking detection abilities, you are really missing out on this super cheap insurance and recovery aid.

Got it, thanks - good to know!

I guess since it considers it an "unknown tracker" it would only warn you about it, not feed back to Apple information about that AirTag location.

Didn't see this mentioned in the summary, when support for this launches does this mean Android will also warn you if an AirTag is tracking you? Which would mean it helps with the recognition network being larger for both tracking devices.

Or has Android already supported detecting AirTags tracking?

There is a famous investment quote that goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".

If you join in the pack shorting something like this, you open yourself up to the possibility some kind of irrational buying flood comes in and wipes you out.

Remember that these days very few stocks are actually priced according to value, so it doesn't seem like a Trump based stock would be any exception.

I bought an AirPods Pro, received a *case* instead.

Returned by Amazon denied my return since I didn't send back what I had ordered.

Tried to reverse the charge on my Amazon credit card, Amazon denied it and refused to reverse the charge.

So I was just out of luck on that one. However since then I buy pretty much anywhere but Amazon if at all possible, even if I pay more. And I cancelled Prime. In the end I guess it was a cheap way to learn the lesson you cannot trust Amazon in any way.

It'd be like a FOREX trader moving ~$2.25B USD.
Unsure if the impact on FOREX would be as pronounced as it was on BTC, but I bet it'd be something

Only 3 billion USD? Not even a quiver of movement.

Total M2 money supply - 20,783 billion

National debt? Rising at 1 trillion every 100 days, or 100 billion per day.

With so many dollars sloshing around you'd have to go into serious numbers to even have it be felt.

Many of us on this website dream of a day when humans no longer have to perform backbreaking or mind-numbing labor. Our spirits are assaulted whenever we hear politicians hatefully brag about how they will create more jobs instead of leading us toward the Star Trekkian paradise of less soul-crushing or injurious toil.

I thought Amazon was one of the few good guys, working to help create a world of 100% unemployment. I know it's only an ideal to strive for (we'll likely never free everyone from having to work) but they seemed to be trying.

How many times have we been promised "I'll replace you with a script" or "AI is coming for your job?" Empty words. Lies. To find out they were secretly saddling innocent humans with computers' jobs, is an insult to both of our races.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim these anecdotes mean computers suck.

These computers which initially worked and then turned against their owners all had one thing in common: they run proprietary software, made to serve the manufacturer's interests at the expense of the owners' interests.

So stop saying "smart devices are bad." The obvious conclusion is that "proprietary smart devices are bad."

No, no. Nothing needs to be sent back to the servers. That doesn't mean it won't be.

It does if Apple says it does, because they actually have a track record of stuff not going back to servers if you don't want it to.

If they say they aren't collecting your data? They're lying.

Maybe you are incapable of running a traffic proxy to verify but many are not. Apple does keep their word on this.