It's like they're more interested in scoring political points than actually dealing with the substance of the bill.

Welcome to politics. The coffee room is --this-way-->

When you have facts on your side, you argue the facts.
When you have people on your side, you argue the polls.
When you have neither, you bang your fist on the table and make as much noise as possible while throwing yourself on the gears of government to grind them to a halt, hoping to wait it out until you actually do have facts and / or people on your side.

American democracy in action, only this time with a Canadian flavor to it. Which means it will be a little more polite, probably a lot funnier, and served with gravy.

What I read from the summary: Canada has imported the "vote-a-rama" from the "reconciliation" bill process from the United States Senate.

Enjoy shooting down your nonsense amendments that only exist to waste time, filibuster, and produce "gotcha" votes that partisan hacks can use in their partisan communication to partisan tribal voters about how CORRUPT AND EVIL the incumbent is for voting against some totally irrelevant-to-the-legislation pet issue amendment that never had a chance to get serious consideration because it's an unserious proposal that wouldn't survive debate.

You're welcome, Canada!

Android tablets have been a shit show since the first one came out. It's very clear that app developers do not think about tablets when they create their UIs - things don't scale to expanded screen real estate the way that they should, and many just assume things that are true about phones, but not necessarily true about tablets (like always having an internet connection, for example).

If you find a device that works for what you need it to do, great. However, using an android tablet as a general-purpose device is just painful and poorly executed even now, because Google hasn't tried to make it better, rather just shoveling out stuff to say they have that stuff.

So what you're saying is that a newer version of base software ceased being compatible with long-abandoned and unmaintained software that runs on it.

That has nothing to do with hardware at all. I don't know why you think what you said changes anything the person you replied to said.

If Cox is liable for user's copyright infringement then Tesla is liable for drivers speeding.

Not if there's a federal law that explicitly declares that middlemen are liable if they don't comply with the DMCA process, while there isn't a federal law saying car manufacturers are liable for speeding.

You might be looking at the underlying principles and making common sense value judgements, instead of reading what the law says.

This is ultimately why politics exists: to influence what the law is, in an attempt to make it more like your common sense value judgements. And it's really hard because these are issues that your congressional candidates probably aren't talking about at all, because they're talking about someone else's "important" [eyeroll] issues instead. We needed to stop DMCA in 1997/1998 and we failed.

The jury seemed to decide that accusations qualify as infringement

However regrettable, it's easy to understand how that can happen.

The jury could have just been told testimony that "we saw xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was seeding our movie" (with screenshots of MPAA's torrent client showing a seeder at that address and the packets they got from that address correctly matching the torrent's checksum). Meanwhile, Cox wouldn't have any evidence refuting it (even though the assertion isn't proven; the "screenshots" could have been made in GIMP for all we know). And then the jury might have ruled based on "preponderance" of evidence.

Kind of like 3 cops saying "the perp resisted arrest" and the perp saying "no I didn't" and a criminal jury (where the bar is much higher) still deciding that the perp resisted arrest. Sigh. You know that happens.

Had Cox ratted their customer out (or gotten a DMCA counternotice from them), then the customer could have been sued instead, and raised doubts by saying "I have an open wifi" or something like that. But Cox didn't, and they certainly aren't going to say "we have an open wifi" since they're in the network business so of course they don't offer free networking to strangers. It sounds like a difficult situation for Cox.

The story is light on details so I ass/u/me some things. The copyright infringement was likely due to torrents, i.e. from the internet's point of view, addresses owned by Cox were publishing/hosting content (under the hood: really Cox's customers seeding torrents).

So if I were an MPAA/RIAA -member company, I'd send Cox a DMCA notice ("Cox, stop sharing my copyrighted work") which really means "Cut that customer off or otherwise make them stop, or else get a DMCA counternotice from them, so I can go after them instead of you." And if that's what happened, then it sounds like Cox said no (didn't make it stop and also didn't pass the buck to their customers. So they sued Cox instead of Cox's customers.

But that's based on assumptions and speculation, hence my question. But yes, I know what a DMCA notice is and I think that mechanism was likely in involved at some point in the story.

That depends, can you even read the first sentence of the summary?

So what would you have said about a useless, ridiculously expensive "solution" to a question nobody asked?

The first part of starting a successful product launch, is having a product that people actually want, or having a product that serves a purpose. This does neither, and costs you $700 + $24/mo to do it.

I'm really not sure what you are looking for when this thing is so very obviously flawed and serves no obvious reason to exist at all.

Yes, there is. You see, there's been a concerted marketing effort for about 70 years now that say car ownership is a must, and mass transit is only for "the poors."

So you're saying that the Olympics don't use the same length / width swimming pools in their competitions?

What unbelievable horseshit.

Oh lookie; Wikipedia has specifications for length, width, depth, lane width, number of lanes, water temperature, and minimum light intensity.

Next time try not making shit up.

Your observation easily applies to the existing current state.

However, I would remind you that at one point people thought Apple was crazy for shitcanning Intel in favor of their own in-house ARM cores, which now flatten everyone on performance with the exception of extremely heavy GPU workloads (Nvidia still king there).

There's no reason to think this state will last forever though if Apple wants to throw gigabucks at it. Of course, they may fail at it too - there's always risk in going in-house.

Either way, their little decade+ long piss-fit with Nvidia is now a very poor choice for them. Literally every single one of their competitors has access to a solution they've self-selected out of due to petty bullshit that they just can't fathom getting over.

Honest question: is there anything Apple *doesn't* want to charge premium for?

It means that they are applying marketing value instead of real value.

We've reached the point in the hype crescendo where if you aren't messaging the ever living shit out of hand-wavey "AI" then you're seen as falling behind and your customers start looking elsewhere. We literally just had a meeting about this where I work - that customers were talking about leaving because we haven't been talking up AI or delivering AI features; but when we ask what AI features they would like to see us working on, it's crickets.

At this point, people just want to see "AI" without even knowing what the fuck they're asking for.

The best part: this outcome was widely predicted. Basically this is the timeline as I see it:

1. media distributors pull their content from popular 3rd party service, in order to start their own service to try to make more money
2. many media consumers regard their greed as not presenting reasonable value, so they don't subscribe. In addition, the previous service they were using isn't presenting the value it used to, so it may be cancelled as well. Returns on your media distribution catalog goes down.
3. media distributors: "piracy!"