No, it's not. It is only legal for someone with a federal firearms license to manufacture guns, and even then they have to have a serial number. Not sure where to got you information, but it is 100% incorrect.

I have not seen Sassy Justice, but the law does look to apply specifically to "intimate images", which I assume Sassy Justice would not fall under. Also, I assume parody could be used as defense in the case as well.

That is exactly what would happen. This is another Trump idea that sounds good when you say it but anyone who puts any thought into it finds very quickly it is a terrible idea. Everything he says is about getting people to like him. He says something like this so people will say "that will help me, Donald Trump is a good guy and on my side". Meanwhile, if it happens, most of those same people will have their credit cards cancelled or not be able to get a card to begin with. He can then say it is all the banks faults not his. Trump is nothing but optics, once you look past the words and actually at how things works, everything falls apart.

No, they don't need to micromanage, just manage. If your manager doesn't know what you do, what are they managing? They should be in contact with the people they manage and communicating with them about their tasks. There are more options than "stand at desk and watch employee all the time" and "let the employees do whatever they want".

I was watching a Twitch stream where Pokimane was addressing her recent visa renewal and some issues travelling back to the US, and she nailed it perfectly. The O1 visa is based upon how much money the US thinks you can make, and they can therefore tax. It's not about artistry or anything like that in the majority of cases, they just want to see you will make money they can collect taxes on. Like most things in the government (especially in this government) it has become entirely transactional.

It's sad to say, but this is part and parcel for the US. The rich want to get every advantage they can, and their money allows them to. So as students with real disabilities get accommodations the rich see it as someone getting something they don't and immediately go about finding a way they can get it to. It doesn't matter that they don't deserve it, they think they deserve it simply because someone else is getting it. And with the US healthcare system, they can always find someone willing to give their kids a diagnosis whether they need it or not because they are willing to pay the price (And can afford to pay the price). This is what the US has become, a plutocracy. The rich get whatever they want because they can afford to buy everything and in the US, everything is for sale.

This is all timed for the midterm elections, which Trump and the rest of the GOP are EXTREMELY interested in. And we all know, Trump is the GOP at this point, so anything that is good for him is seen as good for the GOP.

something something something...democrats give away money to buy votes...something something

No one is really suggesting"at ANY price point". No one thinks renting rooms at 10 dollars is better than nothing, but renting rooms at 100 dollars that normally rent for 200 is better than nothing. And there is nothing stopping you from renting last minute, except the possibility of not getting a room or at least the room you want. If you want to take a chance of not getting a room to save 50 dollars you go right ahead.

I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not. Google had at least alternate store (Amazon) while Apple has had none. Google allowed sideloading so there was (and still is) a way to load apps not in the store while Apple doesn't allow sideloading. You can say Google suppressed the development of alternative app stores, but Apple never even had to suppress because there was simply no way to get them on the device. I am not saying it was wrong to find Google liable, but the fact they have to make changes and Apple continues to have the most locked down device and app store around just boggles my mind.

I didn't read anywhere that their complain was training (there are many complaint about training though). But Sora2 is creating basically infringing videos and that seems to be there issue. The whole reason training on copyrighted works get brought up is because it then allows the models to create infringing work based on the original. The whole worry about training on One Piece is that they can then use it to create videos with characters from One Piece or based on One Piece, which would be infringement. If they trained on One Piece but you could never tell when you were using it, no one would have any reason to complain.

Why would the numbers not justify the warnings? The warnings cost absolutely nothing. Putting a trigger warning on something takes really no time and costs nothing. Even if it only affect 1% of the people who engage with the material, is no cost worth that 1%? I would say yes. Now the flipside, are the people constantly complaining about trigger warnings worth it? If you see a trigger warning and it doesn't affect you, what exactly have you lost that you feel the need to tell everyone how you feel about the warnings?

Ant bets that the deal specifies WHICH US data it is trained on? None of the liberal stuff, just right wing data. I think TikTok is going to end up being the video version of twitter really quickly.

They say it will price them out, but that depends on the break point. The reason they like H-1Bs is they can get workers who will work for less and work more hours because they are trapped in the H-1B structure and are terrified to lose their job, because then they will be deported. So if they truly make $15-20k in profit for the company, will changing to a US based worker who likely will want a higher salary and not work crazy hours be worth it? My guess is they just lock in the H-1Bs for more years and pay them less to keep their profits up. Or they try outsourcing straight to India again and skip bringing them to the US at all.

"EVs can lose almost half their driving distance when temperatures drop"
"In January, Seattle-based Recurrent, a company that tests and analyzes EVs, found an average range loss of 20% in extreme cold"

No one would say 20% is almost half. That is not how numbers work.