Comment Re:past ties to Epstein... (Score 1) 64
Sort of shitty to drag Mandela's name into this.
(I mean, he was a **convicted felon** who also wandered around free for years before he died, right?)
Sort of shitty to drag Mandela's name into this.
(I mean, he was a **convicted felon** who also wandered around free for years before he died, right?)
I just got the encl nastygram from our corporate IT
"We have recently noticed your use of unapproved AI tools, which creates a risk of data leakage. You must not use any AI tools that have not been officially approved when working with business-related information. This includes data such as profits, order quantities, and similar metrics, as well as MS Office files, emails, or any other content containing business information.
We want you to use MS 365 Copilot.
(I'd asked grok for some lunar orbital data and calculations for fun...so not business-related in any case...)
What are the odds that pointing out in writing to my corporate IT that MS's own terms say "for entertainment purposes only" to say nothing of "We donâ(TM)t own Your Content, but we may use Your Content to operate Copilot and improve it. By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf." is just going to get me more nastygrams and probably on someone's shitlist?
I would guess 100%, and didn't even need Copilot or grok or gemini to figure it out!
"No user serviceable parts inside"
Or, in simple English, repair requires skill, training, knowledge, some combination of the three, beyond that a regular and common user would possess.
It also works, in the real world, to identify some product that can not, in fact, be repaired at the component level, either due to physical reality (epoxy potted components come to mind) or the manufacturer's inability to source the required components (third-part complex parts, I could offer examples which should be obvious to anyone able to make an argument from knowledge).
Sometimes this is more a statement of reality than an attempt at obfuscation. 'cause some stuff cannot be 'fixed', and the average user would not even understand why.
Disclaimer - I fully support Right to Repair. I also acknowledge the reality that some stuff is really difficult. And in the example from TFA, We are generally talking about equipment that is not so much 'repaired' as either replaced at the subassembly level, or more likely, in the example, problem-solved in software. You want the right to repair your router's software? Or just access to it after the explicit agreement or arbitrary agreement with the manufacturer says no? As in, you paid for support during the warranty period, but after that expired, the manufacturer soon abandoned software support...? Read the EULA. Ask the State to force them to do whatever the State decided to do. Watch innovation die.
"So, let the companies retain their monopoly over repair and then regulate that repair business"
Your solution is the highest abuse of rent-seeking for the ostensible purpose of 'making things right'.
And this is how government destroys our lives, beyond even the efforts of 'those evil corporations' that are assumed to exit merely to exploit us.
Your proposal is the opposite of liberty. It substitutes the State for the Corporation. And diminishes us further with no benefit, because the State will act in its own interest. The solution is less of the State, more of the individual. Right to Repair does this better than regulating repair.
Oh, and I forgot one thing. Iran is quite proud of the amount of enriched uranium it already has, which has reached the point where it would take less than weeks, perhaps to enrich it to weapons grade. If you were paying attention, you could be confused as to why Iran has any enriched uranium that approaches weapons grade, when it's previously agreed not to do so, that it was sanctioned for doing so, and now it claims it has a right to do so in opposition to widespread agreement that it should not by other nations. By its own words. It's telling you that sanctions weren't effective and that they were ignored or subverted. You wanted evidence, listen to Iran's leadership itself if you would.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/QgdoNXHS0...
Iran Sanctions: Fact or Fiction | UANI https://share.google/aqXycKz6t...
Iran’s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them | The Washington Institute https://share.google/BnGQ9tcN0...
There is more.
If you were more informed about history you would know that not only did Iran ignore the sanctions and agreements, they expelled inspectors and refused to permit follow up inspections as mandated by the agreements they signed.
And many of the dispute resolution mechanisms were subverted or diverted by the other parties involved, the UN and European nations in particular.
This is so widely known that i challenge you to provide evidence of Iran's compliance. But if you cannot, then consider they did not comply in meaningful ways.
I doubt you will. Try again.
As I recall, Ohio toll highways did this years ago; if your time stamp at the booth was less than a certain number of minutes since the previous, you got a ticket for speeding.
Infallible, and took away the point really.
Sure, I guess you could speed and then pull over waiting before you cross the next gate but... Why bother?
Yes.
Have you heard the quality of her court discussions?
A Supreme Court justice that argues against the minutiae of 'legalese' seriously?
it seems the current administration is focused on the former, but not the latter.
Obviously! One company creates pollution and makes money as a result. Another company makes money by charging you to deal with the pollution.
This is the free market at work - markets know best.
Oh please. The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country. You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please
Anyone recognize the absurdity of a European OSS project intended to address 'digital sovereignty' relying on a Russian software project, even just as a source for a fork?
Does no one in Europe pay attention to declared enemies?
One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin