On the other hand there billions of people on this planet that haven't even had the opportunity to be vaccinated. Each of them is just as much of a breeding ground than those who have refused vaccines, but there are two orders of magnitude more of them.

At this stage it is far more productive to focus our efforts on getting vaccines to those people than to be wringing hands about those who have refused the vaccine. Especially when feeding into the culture war aspects just makes people less likely to change their mind. And yes people are still changing their minds, over half a million every day.

If you want a fancy greek sounding word, astroepivat is a shortened anglicized version of star passenger, much like astronaut is a shortened anglicized version of star sailor, which is an apt, an non-insulting description of their role in the flight.

Or you could just go with space tourist.

In this case the guy died of a heart attack.

Because it is the most functional form of side-loading that Apple has approved so far.

No it isn't. All compilers are designed with a front-end that parses the language to an intermediate tree representation and does high-level optimizations, and a back-end that does low-level optimizations and generates assembler. GCC already shares it's backend across multiple languages (c,c++,objc,fortran,ada,go). In the past, rust used LLVM for it's backend, now it is gaining the option to use GCC's backend instead. This will increase the number of architectures that rust can compile on, as well as eliminate the need to have LLVM when building the kernel (although the kernel does now compile with clang+LLVM if you wish).

This isn't generating C code from rust, then compiling that if that is what you are thinking.

Google has multiple offices in China. I think the others do as well.

They may even make a good faith effort to follow the law (doxing is already a violation of Twitter's TOS, not sure about others).

What I'm curious about is which countries would extradite people to Hong Kong for violation of this law. Will this end up having a larger spill-over where they have to pull out of more locations than just Hong Kong? Generally countries will only extradite for offenses that are also illegal in their own country, but I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of all the particulars, nor whether some countries, like China, would use extradition over this for political purposes.

Interesting. Does anyone know if the US has any similar protections, either via laws or treaties with the EU? I know databases aren't covered by copyright here, like in the EU, and was under the impression that collections of facts didn't have any protections in the US, but might be mistaken.

I completely agree that the situation with Amazon and Buffet are completely different. But to clarify, Amazon was doing this to companies it contracts with (like shipping/delivery companies, custodial services, hardware vendors, etc), not sellers on Amazon.com. That's still problematic but not as blatantly antitrust.

> The REASON 230 was needed is precisely because without 230, if they control what's said and what isn't, they become liable. You're replying to someone who correctly stayed the common law. You're right that 230 provides an exception to the common law.

Even that is not necessarily true. Prior to the enactment of the Communication Decency Act, there were all of two court cases considering this issue. Cubby v. CompuServe said web services were considered distributors for purposes of third-party liability, while Oakmont v. Prodigy said that Prodigy's moderation made it a publisher. Neither cases were appealed, and thus neither set any binding precedent. The general consensus at the time was that websites should be considered distributors, and shock about how bad of a ruling Oakmont v. Prodigy was largely drove the enactment of section 230. That consensus could have been determined to be wrong (just like we were sort-of wrong about API's not being copyrightable for 50 years, although their use was determined to almost always be fair use, which is close enough for practical purposes), but we never found out.

Elaborating on that, the political talking points go on and on about how you are either a publisher or platform, when in fact, the law and precedent outside of section 230 recognize three groups - publishers, distributors, and platforms. Publishers (like newspapers) are responsible for what they publish, platforms (like telephone company) are not responsible for what their users do on them, while distributors are only liable for third party content after they have been formally notified of it's illegality. Traditional distributors, like bookstores (or any establishment with bathroom graffiti) are completely free to curate, moderate and censor however they wish and doing so does not cause them to take on the liability of a publisher.

I'm glad that Section 230 went a step further and declared web services platforms and not distributors, otherwise all the abuse we see regarding DCMA take-down notices would have also been occurring with libel and other laws, but I'm pretty skeptical that Oakmont v. Prodigy would have been upheld.

Note that as part of the recall you can choose to return the treadmill for a full refund at this time. Considering how untrustworthy Peloton has been, I'd recommend people take the offer and use the money to buy a different treadmill. Alternately, you have until November to decide to take the refund, so you can wait and see if they do remove the subscription requirement like they are claiming.

No, the connection is that for developers to feel comfortable assigning copyright to the FSF they need to trust the FSF, and that trust has been eroded recently. People on both sides - those who criticize Stallman and those who support him - are upset with the way the FSF handled the situation.

There are likely other reasons for the change beyond this as well. There are practical concerns around the fact that the FSF has been taking a very long time in processing copyright assignments. There are cases where it has been taken over a year, during which time commits are held up from being merged waiting for FSF bureaucracy. There are also the (far less common, almost hypothetical) issue where someone would like to contribute code to multiple projects, and if they both require copyright assignment, that is simply not possible. Lastly, some people have always object to the principle of assigning their copyright, whether they trust the FSF now or not.

That said all of these are general reasons why GCC might have chosen to change their policy, they haven't made their own reasoning public.

If Adrian (or someone else) had intentionally used social media to spread the party this widely, I would agree. But in this case some teen just sent an invitation to his friends and TikTok decided to promote it far and wide, which adds another dimension. It is another example of how social media companies use algorithms designed to maximize engagement to decide which posts to share with whom sometimes with bad consequences.

Adrian could have used another platform or PM/DM'd his messages, but he'd probably used TikTok between his friends for years without ever having a public message spread beyond his group, so he probably didn't even think about the possibility, or if he did had no reason to believe it would be this big.

What is the point of asking those sort of questions during a deposition? If Epic actually wanted answers they could have easily had them by requesting them during discovery, instead of relying on someone to be able to recite them from memory on the spot.

That sort of thing bothers me in situations like a class action lawsuit where the lawyers themselves instantiate the legal action then fail to properly represent their supposed clients, instead just looking out for themselves.

This is different. The journalists chose to hire lawyers to defend themselves (rather than rely on overworked and thus subpar public defenders), and the lawyers deserve to be paid rates that are on par with other lawyers. The settlement the city agreed to was likely a dollar amount for the defendants, plus legal fees. If the lawyer had billed less money for her services than is reasonable and allowable by the courts it wouldn't have increased the money the the defendants received at all, but would have decreased the penalty on the City.