I would say no it's not fraud and not even dishonest -- it's actually kind of honest, open and direct in that they put the text right there.

The fraudster is whoever is submitting any paper they were asked to review to a LLM instead of properly reviewing it.

A LLM is not intelligent and not capable of reviewing a research paper accurately.
The AI can look like they are doing what you ask them for, but that is not exactly the case.

As the whole matter of prompt injection shows.. they are actually looking for signals which can be very different than the signals you think the LLM is looking at.
And there can and are very unexpected (As far as humans can tell) interactions between training data and prompts, and what actually happens.

These are the kind of agents that suggested putting glue on a pizza, LOL. There's a good chance the LLM trained on an Opinion piece, and that will affect the outcome of a so-called "review" by a LLM. Like someone writes on Reddit this random crap that the text of the paper pings on, and you'll have a negative or positive line in a review that is definitely not objective or reasonable.

I guess you were born after 1990 or so. There was still a guy with a cart delivering inter-office memos when I did "take your kid to work day" at boeing in 1991 or so. Personal computers effectively eliminated the secretary by 1995 as executives learned to type messages themselves. Spreadsheets changed accounting and forecasting forever; "computer" used to be a job. "IT was supposed to usher in this great new world of productivity and it never manifested." What the heck are you talking about buddy? The office landscape of today looks nothing like the office of 1970. Microsoft Office replaced the cost center(s) of the company, a two very average analysts can do in a week what a team of 30 used to do in a month. Instead of forecasting two years out at coarse resolution you can forecast out 10 years highly granularly. Change one variable out of curiosity, and do it again instantly. Before you'd have a series of meetings to decide on the one projection you'd do, and then the whole team would work on that for an entire month to produce the single result.

but the requirement is only to charge a battery.

I guess. This would still make 3rd party charging docks possible, however.

The HDMI port on the dock is a separate problem then. And what the EU really needs then is an additional directive that portable electronics which feature a docking system shall support any dock over the USB-C port adhering to the respective USB-C standard; they may not restrict external hardware to specific vendors or devices nor use cryptographic channels or techniques to identify or restrict 3rd party peripheral functionality - the use of cryptographic algorithms, keys, and ciphers is forbidden, except for communications over a computer network in order to secure customer data and customer communications, and to verify the integrity of downloaded software update files prior to installation.

Just wait 'til they find out it's actually a capsule carrying an army of borg drones and nanonites to prep sector 001 for assimilation.

Don't like it? Switch.
Fine. What is your proposed competing console to switch to in order to play Mario Kart World on without the bullshit?

I hope the people who specialize in breaking this kind of protection succeed in giving Nintendo buyers the freedom that they should have by default

They will, but the challenge this time around is Nintendo will likely be making full use of their new power to brick peoples' consoles. Unauthorized dock detected? Bricked.

They do label the cable "USB" on the box.

Doesn't the EU have a new standard in place that mandates All new small and medium-sized portable electronics including Laptops have a USB-C connector and must support fast charging the battery from that connector?

If you RTFA it says amazon has as many robots as human workers. Amazon is the 2nd largest employer in the US; that number may shrink as robot use increases

In a car when a major part is replaced or upgraded, and then it is sold, the seller shows receipts

Yes well cars have many components which cost thousands of dollars and are mechanical with an expectation of lasting years, so there is a meaningful depreciation. Also a car has many systems and is much more complicated than a laptop.

Then you have laptops which pretty much have the SSD and Battery. Every other module is not a single part but many electrical parts and ICs. Monitoring the hours or usage activity is probably not the right thing to begin with for 99% of the parts in a laptop.

Everything degrades so slowly that wear is not much a consideration - a LCD with 5000 hours on can even have a slightly lower failure rate than a brand new one; a depreciation based on usage doesn't really work, because with electronic components it's not strongly related to how much longer the part will last.

Buyers' main concern should be do you have components with failures, when was the manufacture (How old are those caps and ICs), and have those failures been fully corrected with a stable resolution and not a band-aid. And do you have a latent defect that is going to cause a frustrating experience such as random system crashes which has not been tracked down to a specific component. (EXAMPLE: Is the reason this laptop is on the used market is because the owner got frustrated with random glitches and therefore discarded it?)

This is why extensive hardware monitoring testing is suggested. I don't mean casual tests. Run those CPU and Memory at 100% for 72 hours each, sure. But having that device log whether it's run Error-free under normal use over a long period of time should be a huge part, and just as important as some short term stress test.

99% of a laptop's parts are expected to last 5x as long as you would ever use the device. That CPU's lifetime is determined by the date of manufacture not its amount of usage. That LCD that's good for 80,000 hours before it degrades to half amounts to about 30+ years of usage. You could expect a bunch of those 10-cent capacitors on board to die out and numerous other failures of individual electrical components before the largest parts itself degrades from actual use, And there's no way to directly account for the usage and status on all those individual PCB elements.

it's mostly a matter of not highway robbing their loved ones, who haven't done anything wrong.

100% Agreed. These costs are not justifiable for "safety measures".

They are inmates. There is no way a 90 cents a minute - that's $54 an hour is justifiable for safety reasons.

For that price you can pay the wages of two guards who are paid about $17 an hour to personally and individually monitor the inmate every second they were on the phone and listen to every word in that conversation. But you only need one guard to personally monitor them and record their call to $0.02 worth of disk space.

Also, the cost of guarding and monitoring inmates is a state duty not to be placed entirely on the backs of the prisoner and their family.

inserting themselves into this and grading the used PC's in the market is only going to end up driving up prices for those of us who don't buy new PC's.

I seriously doubt they will have success in doing that. They're still old PCs being sold off for a reason; usually because they are outdated.

What this has a potential to do is provide reasons a used device should sell at even Less value than it currently sells for on the used market. Consumers can get their PCFax report and send it back as "Item not described" due to having obvious defects which the seller failed to disclose, etc. Used units that are truly lightly used would have a higher value.

People will have a harder time getting their Old equipment to sell unless provide the relevant disclosures and set a lower price taking them into account.

More detailed disclosures to buyers are good; and I would suggest that the auction platforms such as eBay make a disclosure of that data mandatory unless it's a "Unit may be not functional, No warranty and no returns of dead-on-arrival units. As-IS For Parts only" listing.

should be a small dedicated chip that is able to monitor usage of at least the screen, the battery, the read/writes to the SSD

Actually I would say each of those components, and the main board should have an IC added that counts and reports its own cumulative usages. It's perfectly fine to replace the SSD with a brand new one that can upgrade the storage capacity, performance, and remaining lifetime on that storage module and increase the value of the unit. In fact storage devices generally already have/had all these counters built in as part of the SMART protocol.

Just create an additional SMART protocol for each component believed to be worth monitoring that counts the power-on hours, number of operations, numbers of different kinds of errors reported by either the device or error reported by the core system firmware back to that chip, and log for each component. The big ones IMO would be the main board itself and its PCI buses (Bus error counters), each PCI device, each power supply, and especially each DDR SDRAM module.

You would ideally have a hardware test suite which performs a designated "burn-in test" for 24 hours that includes a RAM test and reports any failures on a component back to the chip on that component to be logged.

It's perfectly fine to replace the screen with a new one; and shouldn't count for or against its value on a used market. For goodness sakes it's some $50 LCD module - not the engine of an automobile, and most of your errors could have been repaired by replacing something such as a $5 capacitor on the board. Not something requiring a detailed history report.

why every space-venturing company on the planet should be subject to a $50 billion dollar deposit immediately.

I don't think the space-venturing companies will ever agree to that one. Most likely they'll just find a third-world country to reach an agreement with about launching their equipment from who is willing to do so without an obscenely high deposit.

Do they make so much money from shady sites that they do not care about their reputation?

Try B. It does not meaningfully affect Amazon's reputation, because people don't even notice most of the time.

And C. The 3rd party merchants undercutting Nintendo pricing are not selling counterfeit products anyway.

This is a type of arbitrage, and not counterfeit items: Enterprising sellers were buying Nintendo products in bulk in Southeast Asia and exporting them to the US

If we can land on an asteroid, I think we can certainly figure out a way to land on a dead satellite
The asteroids landed on are much larger than manmade satellites like this one.

Besides where are you getting the money for this project? Because i'm pretty sure the US or NASA can't pay for or is not willing to allocate their limited funds towards such a thing; considering this satellite is 1 out of 3000. It's at best an uneconomical feat to even try to land on more than a few; not to mention the environmental impact of consuming massive fuel quantities in effort to push structures out of orbit.