I don't understand why they worded the headline like that. Who refers to scoring on an assessment by the percentage you got wrong? if their point is to say the models weren't very good, surely saying they scored 36.1% would have a better audience impact than using the opposite figure.

Yeah, this just sounds like an attempt to extort some money from Sony at the end of the day. And Sony will likely settle, pay out, and everything will continue as it has been, just with some new font sizes and an extra click-through dialog stating the obvious -- you are not buying a digital product.

If the plaintiffs really cared so much about the "ownership" aspect they would be suing for the ability to back up and locally upload purchases to hardware, so they can play even if the PlayStation store stops working on their console model.

Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
The real issue here is the gamers being sold software whose functionality is tied to third-party servers and denied first sale doctrine (the ability to transfer/resell their license if they want to someone else).

Sir, they are clearly listing two distinct outcomes.

Mergers lead to:
1) Layoffs -- due to workload being focused on one labor pool and removing redundant positions.
2) Less choice for consumers -- because you now have fewer independent companies for a product or service.

They aren't saying the layoffs are the cause of the lower choice for consumers. But arguably that's true, too. Off all the people laid off some will not find work at another company in the same function. Some may end up leaving the industry completely for a different career. Fewer people in the entertainment industry means less variety in programming because talent and the decisions on what gets made are now from a smaller pool of people.

Ignoring the quality loss from a smartphone taking a picture of a screen, was this even a "work" smartphone? Why is the officer needing to use a secondhand image? Surely they had proper legal authority to just get a copy of the original footage.

Sounds like the cop just whipped out his personal device and snapped a pic. How does that pass muster with collection of evidence, Chain of Custody... you know, that stuff that serves to prove the evidence wasn't tampered with in some way on the way to the D.A.?

Computing (AI) that will likely be influenced if not written completely by heath insurance companies? I thought we were trying to improve patient care here.

The AI Bros will point to this as evidence artificial intelligence is the real deal and there's money to be made by utilizing it. But Dell is profiting off selling hardware, like Nvidia. Why go on a wild goose chase for supposed riches when you can make money hand over fist selling shovels to rubes in suits.

Yes, and that problem is development time focused on visible, feature-driven work gets more attention than bug-fixing or security coding. This is in corporate profit-driven products as well as open-source projects, too (remember all those Firefox bugs you reported 10 years ago?)

Almost like all these layoffs happening as a result of AI's changes in workplace are a mistake -- also because of AI's changes in the workplace. Why lay off software devs when there is suddenly a bunch of patching needed?

Yes, downsides to ride-sharing companies and their profits, which can impact their executives.
Not saying "wont someone please think of the..." but you are factually incorrect.

Maybe what's happening here is you're using a term differently. When the OP says "privately" he means through a transaction where MRED restricts it to themselves for financial reasons, and you're using it as "I'm selling my house myself, privately."

If you were selling your own home as the owner, Zillow would have no issue listing it, because you're the seller and you're going to deal with any buyer. But if you're having MRED sell your home you're no longer the seller (that's why you hired an agent to handle it). MRED doesn't get to limit who can make offers to only people working with them as a purchaser, and then advertise on Zillow's platform. That's Zillow's call to make.

You have a right to choose any agent to sell your home (as the other guy who replied said), but you don't have a right to be on Zillow.

Zillow has the right to decide what they want to list, too. It's called the right to refuse service (I'm sure you've heard of it).
So unless MRED is an organization exclusively for black Muslim gay men from Nicaragua to sell their homes you're not going to get anywhere here.

Okay, but it sounds like you want to use MRED's service (where a potential buyer has to buy with a MRED agent -- because you are selling with an MRED agent) and still be advertised on Zillow. Zillow doesn't want to list homes that have that sort of buyer restriction on them.They want a buyer to be free to use any realtor for their side of transaction. This isn't an ethical dilemma, it's a business decision. Zillow is saying if MRED wants a website where they can list homes for their "insiders" scheme they need to make their own site and not use the Zillow brand as essentially a private advertising platform.

Because it's not your decision. Zillow is a private company and they can choose to exclude listings that are not available on the open market if they want to. Really... shades of "demanding freedom of speech on non-public forums" here.

MRED could make their own real estate search and advertising site and only show their "in-network" properties -- but they don't want to do that because, besides the actual expense of building and running their own site, they don't have the brand recognition that Zillow has. They just want to piggyback off an existing popular site.

Can't speak for Tizen or Roku, but on Android/Google TV and Amazon FireOS you can use Smarttube (for now at least).

To which I would respond, "You aren't following the convo". This isn't about a local server. It's about all the people who run Plex servers in their home that are used by friends and family that live other places (like their elderly parents in another state). With Plex, these people getting connected is a piece of cake. You just open the app, link your device with the app code (or sign-in with your Plex account), and you're off to the races. Same as if they were using Netflix or HBOMax.

Now, you can set up Jellyfin with a simple reverse proxy and run over SSL, which makes it almost the same (the Jellyfin user would have to enter the FQDN of the server on the app setup), but a lot of homelabbers nowadays seem to think that's not good enough, and you need a full-blown VPN tunnel. So now we're telling people to install a VPN client and configure it to connect back to the host user/Tailscale network, and then entering the local IP (or Tailscale IP) of the server on Jellyfin's setup. Is it possible to use Wireguard/Tailscale with split tunneling, so only the Jellyfin app uses it? Or are we in a situation now that the remote user has to turn the Tailscale connection on/off before they open Jellyfin, or they proxy all their streaming apps through you?

All that to connect to this "easy" steaming setup. Oh, and they aren't on a computer. The user in another location is doing this with that little remote that came with their streaming device more likely. That is my point.