Exactly. I think this is salty people who desperately want the AI bubble to pop and for it all to be a scam of 'stochastic parrots' and a modern Mechanical Turk. It somehow offends their humanity and they are sure there is a vast capitalist conspiracy to defraud everyone. The fact is some asshats like Altman are indeed overhyping BUT that does not change the fact that my team of programmers got cut by 30% yet we are kicking out bug fixes and new features faster than ever. At higher quality too because now a lazy developer isn't half-assing the testcases.

Agreed 100% about hard to predict. I love this analogy from Geoffrey Hinton: it is like driving in a fog. Your headlights see only a few meters ahead and then there is an impenetrable wall of fog. Anyone who tells you they can see exactly where the road is heading a mile ahead is selling you something.

"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.

The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.

We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.

IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.

The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.

Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.

There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.

THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.

Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.

The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.

Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.

If like me you use VirtualBox you should hold off on this kernel upgrade until you know VirtualBox is ready for it

More relevant, Commerce is run by Howard Lutnik, who BBC just implicated heavily about getting Epstein services and lying to Congress. And who unilaterally decided Anthropic (run by Dario who is Democrat and therefore an Enemy of the State) could not release Fable for weeks until they bent the knee. And who approved OpenAI ChatGPT5.6 saying they did not even need government approval. Because Sam Altman already bend the knee.

I'm sticking with stone knives and bear skins.

Free speech includes lying.

Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.

"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?

The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.

If the rental period is indefinite, then the only reason to stop offering it should be technical or logistical - IE something actually broke in the company's systems. We were stupid, consolidated on this one cloud system that turned out to be based in one room in some guy's basement, there are no backups, and there was a fire.

Not a company decision to not renew a licensing agreement.

I agree.

Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?

This might not work out the way you think. Generally speaking, with torrenting, you are not prosecuted for downloading the media. The prosecution is for UPLOADING the media, at least fragments of it, to others.

You'd need to set yourself up as an absolute leech - 0% upload. Might take a while to get the media file in that case. In which case one is unlikely to get the threatening letter in the first place.

Yes, the court system is nitpicky enough for that to matter.

At least to be like Steam - it is understood that people who buy things get said license in perpetuity.
IE they might buy a 10 year license for SELLING said titles, but they still get to provide said titles to those that purchased them after the license expired.
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts. Or their system can't handle not having something for sale yet still downloadable by those who have previously purchased it.

Yes, but once one is ripping, the important part is the digital copy without DRM under your control, not the DVD itself.

Even the physical copy in hand doesn't guarantee continued possession. Besides just needing to protect the disc from things like fire, physical abuse, and more, an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two.