Whether that's all true or not, Python is one of the worst offenders when it comes to breaking changes, and it was top of my mind when I made the above statement.

No, just be facitious. 1 > 0, compare injuries like the commentor you were replying to, instead of bringing up the irrelevant numbers of dead,

I've found myself using more Perl for day-to-day tasks lately too. The sheer practicality of the toolset wins in nearly every situation against all other players - established and incumbent - and the relatively static nature of what was once considered fairly bizarre syntax just doesn't struggle to compete against modern meme languages that are a constant moving target of trying to make everything "better."

The AI is fed (and stores) real patient medical data.

That is an irrelevent observation.

New research that only uses existing data is already exempt from review.

You have yet to explain a reasoning why new synthetic data based on previous studies should require a review.

How do you make the synthetic data, dipshit? AI copies real data..

Hey, stupid idiot. AI copies nothing. AI is trained on real data, but the output is new data imputed by a generation algorithm: it is the reverse of a pattern match or categorization, and synthetic data is not a collection of new data from a person. I'd say it is also questionable how they can show the data is truly representative.

In any case: the ethics review is only about data being measured and collected from patients as part of a study. They address issues such as how are you going to make sure the patients are safe and not at risk of physical harm, and are being treated with dignity by your experimental process when you are interfacing with them and collecting their data: for example you aren't collecting samples in a public place allowing them to be seen indecently in public. Once the data has already been collected you could re-use the existing data for as many studies as you want without further review. The review process is about how your experiment uses humans; not how you use the data after the experiment. So it doesn't really matter.. If you aren't physically bringing people in and taking measurements on them or having them directly participate in an experiment, then there is nothing to review.

When I was in college, I delivered food more than 20 hours a week, I usually got about $10 a week in tips, never $10 in a single night.
Presumably as an employee with the company paying the expenses. You wouldn't have been able to do this as an Independent for a tipping app for $10 a week --- I mean that your material costs as in gasoline at $3 a gallon plus the wear and tear on any vehicle would exceed the $10.

Pretty nice to get $25k tax-free every year, eh? I predict this will spread like weeds.

They are not deductible unless the specific job you are performing is in the list of customarily-tipped jobs.

Yea, maybe I'm just dreaming it but I thought this had come up once before and the ASF backpedaled on the name change after actual Apaches stepped forward and insisted they weren't actually offended.

I believe it only counts as a tip if the customer specifically Pays it as a tip.
There are tipping services broadcasters can put up, Or they can accept payments directly at a Paypal account, and the only amounts taken out are a ~5% processing fee.
It is not clear if the other more expensive "gifting" features some of the platform sites offer would count as a legitimate tip,
because with those you are actually paying to the platform, and the paltform is just sharing a small percentage with their supplier.

Tips by definition cannot be collected by an employer, because it is the employee's property.

However, the employer can collect the tip through the credit card processing and charge for their payment processing cost.
An employer can also force their employees to participate in a tipping pool which pays out to customer-facing customarily-tipped coworkers.

In any case, the tipped payment deductions are only for the employee.

Yes.. Honestly there should be an "ethics" review of every piece of research involving data prior to publication. The inquiry should be how is the data protected procedurally to ensure high-quality accurate representative data and sound reasoning both in terms of logic, mathematically, and statistically with disclosures of uncertainties and potentials for error.

We're literally in a world where AI is allowed such carte blanche that medical records that need ethical review to be included in a study can just be flung to the AI as training data

No. It says synthetic data, which belongs to no person, is exempt from the review. There are obviously no privacy concerns for synthetic data which does not belong to anyone. Research involving developing an AI by processing, training it on a real person's or persons' medical records would obviously require ethical reviews before building that AI or supplying training data.

the First Sale Doctrine or something like it generally applies, and the purchaser gets to do all sorts of innocent things

The First Sale Doctrine is a US legal precedent which does not apply in the UK. Also: The first sale doctrine generally does not apply to Unpublished work -- suppose I wrote a book, never published, but lost a copy of the book, Or the company I had do the printing made an extra without my knowledge and was lost in shipping. In theory you could find my lost book, but No first sale exists, since the copyright owner did not authorize the original first sale - there are no first sale rights that can flow to the holder of the physical copy.

Thus even in the US; this precedent would not save you, because the console was property of Nintendo, and never sold with their authorization. The copyright owner never authorized a sale. In short, there is no first sale, because Nintendo did not sell it, and neither did they ever grant anyone else the right to sell the copy.

The Merchant's mere intent to traffic in it by reselling it further can thus constitute not just Copyright infringement with commercial gain, but Patent infringement as well. (Nintendo's hardware designs covered by multiple patents)

It is a remarkable stretch to claim that copyright extends to turning something on. Copyright doesn't deal with that sort of thing at all.

Under UK Copyright law: Powering a device up and loading software into RAM counts as making a new copy of the software, and it is a violation of the law If you are not properly licensed. You also have no fair use rights if you possess software which was not first sold with the authorization of the copyright owner. Since Nintendo will never have intended for the Dev Kit to be released to the public -- the copyright work will be unpublished, And the copy has never been sold with the authorization of the copyright owner -- therefore, It is not possible for the Merchant to convey a legal copy or license to their buyer, since the unit was never legally sold with distribution authorization of the copyright owner to begin with.

Powering the console on loads some kind of software into memory. Even if Nintendo has implemented security protocols which prevent you fully booting the dev kit without authenticating your entitlement.

Copyright covers the distribution or trafficking in works as well. The copyright holder has the right to control distribution of -- in what is in this case unpublished work.

idk UK law, but i hope this guy sues both Sega and the the Police for damages.

US states basically copied the fundamental principles regarding how this works from English law regarding property, and the biggest difference will be the US Police have blanket immunity from being sued "qualified immunity" for police actions, even when they break the law - if their actions are in good faith and not barred by clearly-established precedent the lawsuit would go nowhere. The UK doesn't have that, and the police can be sued as individuals for a breach of the law, much like any citizen can; False report could also be actionable defamation in theory in the UK if there is reputational damage.

This is provided in the UCC, "Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer

That is in the UCC, but I am sure Nintendo has a written contract that says otherwise. Language written in an explciit written contract between the parties supercedes all the defaults set out in the UCC. If contract states Sega does not have power to transfer title to the unit, then they do not have that power.

Of course another problem is that a console Development kit is not goods - not a kind of item ordinarily available from any merchant. And Sega is not a merchant who deals in Nintendo development kits, anyway.

if they where thrown out in the trash and recovered then nintendo no longer owned them

Nintendo would still have legal title to them if Nintendo was the legal owner and somebody else threw them in the trash without Nintendo's permission. They just don't have a criminal charge, AND they don't have a prima facie case. Nintendo would actually have to build a case disputing the ownership and providing evidence in court, then convince a Judge that they are in the right, And that money damages are not sufficient and equitable remedy (Ordering the seller to return the actual unit) is necessary.

Nintendo would also still own the intellectual property (Copyrights) required to power on and use the device -- And you do not possess a legal copy allowing you to power on the device and use it. That is the same as posesssing a pirated copy of Windows if Nintendo never sold or released the title of ownership to that particular console, then it is Copyright infringement for anyone else to possess that particular console.