I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals. Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the others will do something transformative with the data.

The advertising clause wasn't "non-free" as much as a practical problem that was incompatible with the GPL's ban on additional restrictions. It was largely removed when much popular software switched from the 4-clause original BSD license to the 3-clause or 2-clause version.

The appropriate copyright notice clause remained in 3-clause and 2-clause BSD licenses. This clause is also present in GPLv2 and GPLv3.

Why more people are buying DVDs/blu-ray. They have the movie. They own it. It can't be taken from them. It won't change.

The same with books. No worrying that your digital copy will mysteriously disappear one night. You have the book. You bought it. It's yours. The words won't change.

Well, you got me to look at F-Droid, but I didn't find the solution approach plausible. Part of the implausibility came from the extremist tone. Not possible to predicts so many details of a final implementation even if it was an accurate description (and I doubt that) of the current form. Not persuaded, but maybe a visible financial model would have helped persuade me? Was it down there on the seventh screen somewhere? Or if I just clicked on the right link?

But no hint in your reply what you found implausible about my approach. The original premise of the google was that there was a truth out there and they were going to help us find it. I think the financial truths are kind of important...

Tangential take from Careless People involves Zuck's self-contradiction. On one hand, his profits are coming from advertising. The meta-ads targeting the advertisers tell them that buying ads on Facebook (and other Zuck productions/acquisitions) is the best way to invest their advertising budget because it will reach real customers who will then spend more money on goods and services. MUCH more many than the cost of the ads on Facebook. Actually it's worse than that, because the profits are only a fraction of the customer spending, so there's a kind of multiplier effect there. But on the other hand, Zuck says Facebook has no effect on elections and those political advertisers were just pouring their money into a toilet.

However I just had another bleak take on things.

The world could be different. The world could even be better. But the world is what it is and we just have to live in it. (There was a Peanuts joke along these lines...)

Errr, hearing aids are significantly larger with standard hearing aid batteries being larger than airpods themselves,

No, they're not. My dad has hearing aids and they are about the same size as an airpod.

For reference, this is close to, but not the same as, what he has. This shows the size of the various airpod models. They are not "significantly larger" than a hearing aid, and in fact are nearly identical in size.

Like seriously that is an insanely ignorant example. Cheese also contains calcium so what excuse does chalk have for not being used as a sandwich topping?

Yes, your example is insanely ignorant. Cheese is a food. Chalk is not.

I taught Gemini how nose-picking works. They owe me!

No one answered your sincere question, so I will. At least search shows no mention of "liability" and that's the key.

Actually the real question is "Given their completely lack of legal liability even for the most egregious flaws in their software, why did Microsoft bother to patch so many of them?"

Going for Funny:

Microsoft was feeling too humane to fire all the unneeded humans. Now the humans sit around testing the AI software, including the patches for all those bugs created in the past...

Only Funny in 200+ comments? I think there was room for more. Sadness?

I was looking for some joke along those lines, but maybe the story lacked implicit irony?

Mod parent extra funny, though the story deserved more.

Yes, Funny, but the story deserved more jokes. Rich target.

Too risky to laugh at so much evil in one corporate cancer?

Rather a late response. Why?

But I will say your version seems unlikely to fly through any Congress I've ever studied. Okay, they can't actually call this version a "death tax", but I'm sure they'll devise a suitable anti-marketing pitch.

Point taken. I miss George. And Bill Hicks.

Mostly the ACK, but I partly disagree as regards the Japanese market, which is another one big enough that no major international company prefers to ignore it. The phone companies have a major convenience grip on their customers private phone parts. Most concretely, they have special apps for their own accounting and billing (and ads, must not forget the ads). For example, my own company also requires the use of a special VoIP app for free (national) calls.

I don't want to name names on the theory of "There's no such thing as bad publicity", but it would be pretty hard for me to say anything good about Rakuten Mobile at this late date. Whoops? I'm one of their first customers, but I think I've already become one of the last of their first customers who is still putting up with the constant flow of "beautiful support". What did you think BS stood for?