a) I never heard this claim at the time.
b) For cable retransmission of a broadcast signal it doesn't even help since you still have to leave the time where the ads would have been played for those receiving the signal via broadcast. Only once you have individual streams can you just continue playing the content.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

What is more likely, that Slashdot was successfully engaging in a cover up, or that they failed to establish editorial coverage over a weekend?

The summary claims that "the first Supreme Court ruling about free speech on social media", but SCOTUS has not only not ruled on free speech here they specifically state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with their decision. To wit: "Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues".

This is actually a due process ruling, on whether the jury instructions were sufficient for a criminal case vs. a civil case.

In addition, the conviction has not been overturned. The case has been reversed and remanded back to the lower court to retry with correct jury instruction, but the defendant is not free yet.

"Please cite a real example"

Strictly speaking that's not a relevant counterargument since the question is about what could or couldn't they do not what are or aren't they doing.

"they even demand this on the part of their partners"

Because otherwise they would never be able to add anything that involved anyone else ever without asking for new permissions at any change and supporting all possible combinations of acceptance and rejection. Want to add an "Export to Facebook" bridge? Can't do it, no license. Want to apply Instagram filters and bring it back into Google Photos? Can't do it, no license.

That bit of Apple's license is only good by itself if they don't interoperate with anything else.

" You only need a license if you want to be able to make copies of something and put them in public for your own purposes"

No they need at license to do that for any purpose. You want to send a link to someone for a picture you have in Google Photos? If someone follows that link that's a public display and Google needs a license to show the picture to them or else it is a copyright violation.

The abstract litteraly says 2.8x2.8 square microns.

Yes, that makes no sense. No, aardvarkjoe is not incorrect since the intention was to quote from the paper.

I have access to the full text, and the body also says 2.8x2.8 square microns. However, looking at the microphotograph of the device it looks like what they meant was 2.8x2.8 microns square, i.e. a square that is 2.8 microns on each side.

What limitations had you placed on that video you posted?

Or was it really just publicly available to everyone, so you really have nothing justify your fears about privacy?

a) Think of everything people expect a photo hosting service to do. How to you think you can legally do them without those permissions?
b) Nothing in there refers to public posting that the user did not request.

Firefox using 4+GB of memory really isn't any better than Chrome using 4+GB.

I use Adblock Plus to block plenty of things that are not ads for this very reason. For example, CNN has autoplay news videos... or at least I presume they still do. Their ads I do't mind.

"rather than something entirely ridiculous"

Each 747 would have to fly more than 3.5 water flights per day, since there have only been 1500 made counting all variants. So you also need water sources no more than 3700 statute miles away.

Tasty dinners provide aid and comfort to the enemy!

If an individual, and now apparently a government, finds that it is cheaper to default than to perform, that is a moral failing.

If a corporation find that it is cheaper to default than to perform, well that's just good business.

I guess since a corporation is amoral it is immune to moral hazard.

People act as if they've only now discovered that Greek have terrible tax collection and that their bonds were a bad risk. Sure, let's say there should be some consequence for Greece if it defaults. However, there should also be some consequence for the German banks that invested in what everyone else knew was a bad risk. The whole idea behind a risk premium is that there's a chance that you will realize that risk. Well, the German Banks did realize that risk and like good Americans they have attempted to socialize the losses.

The German people have been subsidizing the Greeks because they have been unwilling to bail-out the German banks directly.

There is absolutely nothing in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that prevents commercial exploitation, and it actively encourages scientific exploitation. What it prohibits is national appropriation, i.e. no country can claim claim territory.
What is unclear is who who has jurisdiction over conflicts between nationals of different signatories. (Nationals of the same signatory are under the jurisdiction of that signatory.) For example, if US Space Mining Co comes along a picks up the processed ore from EU Space Mining Co and runs off with it EUSMCo has no venue for redress of the theft.