It's important to whether your comment was relevant.

Is it dedicated to being a music player?

Whoops. I mean, Trademark. That's what I get for not using Preview.

Derivative works contain recognizably copied elements. There are many uses which don't meet that standard. Just looking like the thing doesn't suit, either, it has to be obviously directly copied (though possibly manipulated) and not recreated.

The concept of copyleft was literally created because open source wasn't open enough for its creator.

"Open" meant "documented and interoperable" in UNIXland for many years. Open Source's origins are in the security community's use of the same phrase to mean an intelligence source anyone could get information from. The first programmable computers came from military efforts, and the bulk of computers were military until they became inexpensive, so this relationship was well-established and fundamental, therefore influential.

BSD and MIT are absolutely, positively, 100% Open Source licenses. They (and other code sharing licenses) were referred to as such before Christine Petersen ever claimed to have invented the phrase, which is why the OSI doesn't have the right to define it and also why their lawyers told them that they couldn't copyright it, and also why you're wrong.

It helps if you know what Open Source means. It means you can see the source.

If you can get access to the training data and the code that turns it into a model, it's open source regardless of what you're allowed to do with it, or whether you can afford the computer time to build the model from the data. If you can't see the sources, then it's not open source. Not even every definition of Free Software ensures that you will actually be able to use the code in question. That's why there is a GPLv3, with an anti-Tivoization clause; GPLv2 wasn't Free enough. But even the GPLv3 doesn't mandate that you be able to make meaningful use of the code for reasons beyond artificial restrictions, like not owning a supercluster.

I've got a work iPhone here and it pisses me off every time I try to do anything with it. I'm sure once I learn the Apple way of doing things it will make some kind of sense but I've used practically everything over the years and this is some baffling bullshit.

Pumped hydro storage is certainly a thing, but it requires a viable site etc etc.

Batteries and inverters are good enough now that battery storage is commercially viable, and it's only going to become moreso from both ends.

That's a funny way to spell eliminated.

House the homeless and they can cook on electric. It would be cheaper than what we are doing now, especially what with all the empty homes and office buildings. In fact not filling those empty homes is actually destroying value since unoccupied homes degrade even if not broken into and stripped for copper.

You would have to be an idiot to use nuclear for that when you can get more capacity for less money with other solutions. Since the resulting fuel is cheap and easy to store, intermittency of supply is a non-issue.

Wind is cheap enough to overbuild to solve your capacity problems.

You do need to build more transmission lines, but you need those no matter what kind of generation you build, and no one wants any of it in their neighborhood so you always have to go long distances.

If you overbuild wind then you wind up with unused capacity, which provides incentive for new uses for intermittent power. It's not a problem at all because wind can be throttled down at will

"Chill with the learn to read BS."

Learn to read first.

I imagine he was talking about the original roadster with the chassis done by lotus. For once he has a point.

That car sold like hotcakes and there is probably enough demand to do another run.

If you're a government, yes you can.

The EU has consistently resisted Apple's fake and hostile "compliance" and they will likely continue to do so.