Having played Fortnite since shortly after it came out, mostly as a way to keep in touch with my nephews and nieces, the game has been in decline for quite a while. They made a number of cutbacks over the years and added a bunch of new subscriptions, and than raised the cost of everything. Just as an example, Fortnite used to end every chapter with an event. Millions of people would log on, and watch what was essentially the epilogue of that season and the trailer for the next. They gradually cut back and made them far less often, and generally far less intricate. The kids would love it and they would talk about all the cool things they saw and the rumors about what was coming next. Now... they play the game every once in a while. They are no where near as invested in the story, and the game feels much less Epic.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. So this case is specifically about the IEEPA tariffs. The legality of the other tariffs weren't challenged, or were not challenged in this case. The number you used, 30%, threw me for a loop. IEEPA is actually about half of the tariffs. You can read a pretty succinct summary on NPR here:

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/20...

I don't know where you're getting either of these from:

"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The
judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–
250 is affirmed"

There are other tariffs still existing, that weren't challenged in this case, but there is no 12 month limit, and all the tariffs challenged in this case were ruled illegal.

It has been a long time since I've seen a website get /.'ed. It put a strange, nostalgic smile on my face.

You're forgetting the corollary to that. If the book says 3 hours and you get it done in 1, you still get paid for 3. You'll still sometimes get screwed by no fault of your own, but if you're good at the job, and try hard you can bill a lot more than 8 hours a day.

I'm not sure where you travel to and from, but outside of a few airports in Africa and a couple in India, basically every airport has Wifi. The majority have it for free or a relatively nominal price. Not to mention that you can download the Esim before you leave on a trip, and switch to it whenever you land.

Honestly, if you're not going to hit Platinum, there's no reason whatsoever to be loyal to Marriott. I have lifetime gold and I'm probably 50 nights away from lifetime platinum, so I'll stick with them for a bit more time, but other than that I'm relatively brand agnostic at this point.

Club access is great, if you're at one of the dwindling number of hotels that offers a club.

Agreed. I'm not sure what this article is talking about, Hilton has made some minor improvements, but Marriott has continued to be less and less rewarding for customers. Between the point devaluations, the lack of brand standard enforcements, and the lack of benefits, for the average consumer you're better off booking through a third party when the rate is cheaper. I can't think of a single change Hyatt made within the past 6 months, same with Wyndham.

Even if you buy the gift cards from Amazon, they will quite often lock your account if you use them on electronics, or anything really popular. It is an incredibly dumb system.

The initial comment about preemption is, sort of in the article, but not in the way a human would ever understand to mean. "The Trump administration, with the aid of AI and crypto czar David Sacks, has been pursuing a path that would allow federal rules to preempt state regulations on AI,"

The way the summary is written makes me think AI wrote it. It shows a clear lack of understanding. Not that the article is much better written. It doesn't seem to understand the supremacy clause or the way the power of the purse works.

I'm confused as to why one of the pre-existing noise ordinances wouldn't have already covered this, and if for some reason it didn't, why not just amend it rather than pass a bill specifically targeting a site?

This service targets the generations least likely to use cash. Outside of a casino, I use cash once or twice a year. I know most of my friend group is the same way. I can't imagine this will generate a large amount of revenue, but it might work as a marketing strategy to drive business from Robinhood to Gopuff.

I strongly agree. Copilot might be fantastic, but I'm not even willing to give it a chance because they keep on trying to foist it upon me. Unless someone tells me that using it cures cancer, I'd rather use one of the many alternatives.

This feels like MS trying to force people to use IE all over again.

I'm really surprised they're not terrified of the liability. If their bot tells a 15 year old to OD on Kratom, and the kid dies, they don't have any protection. You'd think if nothing else they'd restrict it from posting medical and/or legal advice.

I think a better answer would be an update to the law. Perhaps allowing AI created art limited copyright protection? Whether that's a more limited protection from derivative copies, a lower threshold for fair use or even significantly shorter periods for protection.

To me this is like the question of theseus, but in reverse. At what point does your AI created work, become yours? At some point it must, right? Let me use an absurd argument to make a point. Let's say you spend 20 years iterating a picture with AI. You instruct it on exactly where to place every pixel and than use tens of thousands of instructions to further refine the image into exactly what you want. Surely that counts as art that should be copyrightable, right?

Rambling on, maybe a good subjective definition should be "works created by AI should only be considered as potentially copyrightable if the number of hours taken to create the end product is equal to or greater than the expected number of hours a similar image made by skilled human hands would take.

There are probably a ton of loopholes and likely better ideas out there, but that is my first thought.