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.

Hmmmm... interesting approach. Is the license "permission" to watch it from sony during the duration of their contract, or do I "own" the movie, but not how it's presented through Sony, in this case.

If it's the latter, copy/rip the media.

A short aside:

I have a fairly large audible account. I noticed about 10 years ago, I still have books in my queue, but I'm unable to download/listen to them. Audible explained the licence to me, told me that it should appear back in my "library" eventually but might take years (and maybe never), but here, have a free "credit" (which is basically, another free book).

Had that happen about 6 times over the last 10 years (the most recent was about a year ago. Each time, I got a credit -- and with the exception of the most recent, the book re-appeared in my library. If the pattern continues, I should have it back in my library within 2 years from when it was removed.

I can live with that.

"an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two."

If only there was some way to take the data on a DVD and move it to a computer. Maybe "brute force it". We could use the term "rip"!

Then backups with redundancy would turn a decade or two in to a generation or ten. ...if only...

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...)

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?

Okay, I'll say it sounds like a reasonable question for a plausible FP, but do you [TwistedGreen or caseih or another reader] care to say enough to make anyone care? Even care enough to "encourage" a websearch?

My problem with websearch these weeks is the AIs lie and hallucinate too much. On the second hand they are so polite about it that the "conversations" are often more pleasant than what you see on today's Slashdot, but still. Mostly I don't want to talk to it. It's almost enough to drive a human to Bing. "Which AI do you trust today?"

But I still have a radical suggestion for a broader solution approach: Tell the truth. In reference to today's WWW it sounds like I must be going for funny, but I'm quite serious. The specific truth I'm asking for involves the truth about the money. Can you imagine a "Business Model" tab in Google's and Apple's presentation of the app they are "helping" you install for their greater glory and market dominance?

Given the usual discussions I notice on Slashdot these years, it's really hard to think the average reader has that much imagination, so I'll practice my typing a bit more. (But the AIs type also better than I do, among their other wonderful attributes.)

The basic idea is to let the app's creator explain where the money is coming from so we can assess the legitimacy and motivations and even the probable durability of the app. I think most of the time that would just involve picking from the list of popular business models, but there should be an "Other" option where an actual innovator can explain something else. Up to you to decide if you want to trust the salesman whose pitch includes "It's a new business model and I don't want to tell you the details." I actually think there are too many suckers who would swallow that bait anyway, but...

The lower part of the "Business Model" tab would be under the control of Google (or Apple or Samsung or your phone company or Microsoft or Meta or worse). (Worse than Meta? Whoa!) In many cases, the cases where the google is participating in the business via ads or some other aspect, the google would be able to add a simple affirmation of the sort "We are on the other side of that business model and it is working as described." I'm not saying the complicated cases would go away, but the google could decide exactly how much "due diligence" seems called for. Or ask their AI to assess the risk? Does the google even trust their own dog food these years?

But there is a deeper root of the problem. It's the "Live and let scam" business model. In email the specific flavor of poison is "Live and let spam", and I think most of the blame still goes back to Microsoft for the EULA innovation. Consider the case of Microsoft's liability if you commit a crime using Microsoft's "perfect" software. That's right, you (and the victims) have no case. (I used to credit Microsoft with two significant innovations leading to PROFIT!, but after reading Microsoft Secrets by Cusumano and Selby, I changed my mind about one of them. Not the actual innovation I thought it was?)

Most US population centers are in places east of the point in their time zones where the sun is overhead (or due south) at noon, and being a bit west is better than being a bit (or very, for New England) east. This means that DST is mostly the right UTC offset for the wrong reason: Boston should be on Atlantic Standard Time year-round, but Eastern Daylight Time is a name for the same clock setting that is already used there sometimes, so that's easier to legislate. Of course, the people who live west of their true noon line don't think permanent DST would be good, but the fact that we should have no DST and a different map is too nuanced for the position that there's got to be a single simple answer as to how to fix everything, regardless of the situation.

*sigh*

c/is to completely/is so completely/

I suspect this kind of error is symptomatic of something. But I know the post is effectively expired. I just came back to see if the moderation meant something...