We know that the boards were compliant because Intel won't sell chipsets to anyone who doesn't follow their rules. Hardware Unboxed was exercising extreme diligence to confirm that Intel hasn't specified which power limits they're ok with. The whole market stack is captured, which unfortunately for intel leaves them with nobody to blame but themselves.

The only way intel could escape liability for this problem would be if some of the board makers were falsifying data to pass the conditions (like VW with their DEF emissions fraud scheme), which hasn't been alleged.

That's a great car analogy because it involves a car. Here's a better one.

Ford: Buy our 500hp engines, it will allow you to drive 200mph!

Dodge: We plan to hit 210mph by using Ford's engine. We are going to run it at 50,000rpm and will be saving costs by using no radiator.

Ford: Sounds great, we will tell everyone to buy a Dodge!

Probably because of the 20 minutes of script reading. If I wanted to waste my life listening to a drone read I'd call customer service.

MSI was one of the makers pushing infinite power on all their boards and this advice is not current. I'd expect their aberrant results to be an indicator of some other configurations that are quite unreasonable.

The Chinese don't want to spend their annual salary on a phone known to fall apart just so they can look cooler than their neighbor?

As an early beta-tester (read: customer) of Ford's attempt at making a CVT transmission, please stop giving them ideas.

Article is about intel's approved rules and bios's bricking CPUs, not boards failing due to inadequate VRM's. If you had the same problem, then even after replacing the board your problem would persist, except that board likely is ewaste-by-design everything soldered on-board so you accidentally replaced the whole system.

It's the fault of the motherboard makers for using the chipsets exclusively allowed by Intel with a bios explicitly approved by Intel while following the rules drafted by Intel.

The common failure when all your decisions must be approved by some outsider is to stop doing your own oversight. Of course the board makers should have done better, but it's 1000% intel's fault for failing to use their position to actually protect their products and customers.

The case revolves around subscribers who received repeated notices but they allegedly never stopped their infringements and cox never disconnected them. This was a problem because the DMCA has language about repeat infringement, strikes, and removal/disconnection but doesn't specify what qualifies as infringement or how many strikes is too many.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement, and whatever number of strikes was considered "reasonable" was largely ignored since cox allegedly didn't ever disconnect anyone and maybe wasn't even tallying how many "strikes" individual subscribers received.

To my understanding cox was following the law regarding passing on strikes/warnings to subscribers, but as the alleged infringement was temporal in nature there's nothing to takedown. It does seem that the courts just passed interpreting the extremely poorly written law onto a jury which might be the only group of people less qualified than the congresscritters who wrote it.

They're using more or less PC hardware, but the APIs are more aggressive in targeting the exact features of said hardware. That creates a problem when the same game is released on a newer platform which doesn't have those specific GPU features.

Scientists: There is no god.

Also scientists: There is likely a god, and he lives in his mom's basement.

Well that's stupid.

The entire history and purpose of "230" was to encourage sites to engage in moderation, alternatively favoring or suppressing different content, and to give them the freedom to do so without being treated anything like newspapers or other media.

I doubt that there's anything interesting that happened, and I certainly don't believe your take on it, but as a general rule there's nothing at all wrong with the government offering advice or asking people to do things and for people to agree or to voluntarily do those things.

For example: If the government puts out an Amber Alert, you don't have to read it, you don't have to watch for the child who has apparently been kidnapped, and you don't have to report sightings. You can ignore the whole thing and go about your day. You can even deliberately notice the kid and the kidnappers and not lift a finger. That's not illegal. You're committing no crime by letting kidnappings happen where you lack a duty to stop them.

But it's nice to help rescue children, so why not do what the government is asking you to volunteer to do?

Apparently the reason why is that you are opposed to anti-kidnapping, pro-saving-children government conspiracies of that sort.

They're almost always the same. If there are any that aren't, I'd be shocked. He occupies the same sort of 'designated target of hate' that the Rothschilds did. In fact, that's really where it all starts -- a couple of political consultants working for Victor Orban, the Hungarian dictator, decided that a useful political tactic would be to have an enemy to demonize, so they rather arbitrarily decided it would be Soros. Read all about it.

And so we wound up with Hungary being thoroughly fucked up, Hungary impairing the functioning of the EU and NATO, increases in anti-semitism and fascism, probably daily death threats against a guy who did nothing wrong, and all to score some cheap political points.

It's disgusting.

Still works fine, actually. And it's been closer to three decades now. 47 USC 230 is from 1996.