French law has a "Legal Conformity Guarantee" requiring a product be fit for purpose. I don't think the question is whether it's licensed or owned, but whether the service is considered to be part of the product.

If you mean sources, yes. If you mean binaries, no. e.g. the GPL permits you to cease distribution of the binary as a remedy for not wanting to provide sources.

No, dear clown, I'm trying to mitigate stupid. I have been a PRT proponent since before you had an account here.

Wordpress is a name everyone knows. This is unfortunate on multiple levels, but still true.

I approve of them receiving supervision, but not requiring it. At minimum they should at least be able to operate at a reduced speed in questionable circumstances so they don't have problems exactly like these.

You said the word, pack, which explains why there often aren't enough sensors. EV batteries are mostly laid out in series-parallel configuration and made of many cells, and the intelligence on the health of individual cells is poor in most cases.

Volvo is Chinese with a design house in Sweden

I can't imagine anyone not understanding that their right to exist is based in part upon that belief, because otherwise they have been willfully aiding and abetting mass copyright infringement.

Talk about a money shot. If Anthropic argues that this use doesn't wash away restrictions, then they're also arguing that their software is illegal. Shades of copyleft.

If they have a smoking gun? Sure. And the SEC will want in, too. Otherwise? GLWT

Humans have flaws. Taxi drivers sometimes commit crimes. Nothing I will say here is meant to imply that humans are perfect. But they can at least be trusted to do something predictable most of the time. A computer cannot, so you can't trust it on its OR even as much as a human. But you also can't trust central management. QED, you simply cannot ever trust an autonomous taxi.

Finding ways to replace human work is the backbone of progress, but sometimes replacing a human is not actually a good idea.

Yes, defending victims is a famously arrogant activity.

Still probably true BTW, though ironically my example is the opposite. I bought a pair of issue desert boots and a paid of issue arctic boots at the same time. The arctic boots came with two sets of liners, were flawless, I still have them. The desert boots came apart on like the second wear, which sadly was long after I bought them. They disintegrated at a seam.

Sigh. I meant to write more there that would make that comment make more sense as a reply to your comment.

Anyway... why not just tampered with clones? Fix your defects, with a broad definition of "defect"

This story is about clones.

The word "Clones" appears in the headline, summary, and article.