I have an Android TV projector and use it to play movies off a local DLNA server with VLC. Half the time the local srt files are completely ignored. I can find no reasons for it and I've tried everything. It's annoying as fuck as I (and family) watch movies in multiple languages. I find all the other media player systems (Plex, Jellyfin, etc...) highly cumbersome because they reorganize everything.
Yesterday I even tried merging avi and srt into an mkv and even that wouldn't display the subtitle. WTF ?!?

As a chronic imgur user from day one, yes imgur will transcode certain formats straight to webp.

... you insenitive clod!"

is what I feel like telling any TV manufacturer that expects me to connect my TV to the outside world.

An over-the-air antenna and a connection to my non-internet-connected media server are all I need.

What, did you think Citizens United would only allow conservative organizations to conceal their funding sources?

I maintain that boast remains objectively true (yes, in spite of Biden's decline) every time your guy opens his fool, lying mouth.

Get rid of the department of Education, founded by Jimmy Carter, our worst President, in 1979.

Congress should eliminate the Department of Education. It was created in 1979 by peanut-head Jimmy Carter, possibly our worst President. My education preceded that and I and my cohort (Boomers) did fine w/o DOE.

It speaks volumes about who MAGA looks up to as their thought leaders, and it's perfectly on-brand that those people are as easy marks as their followers.

It's generally understood that copyright law protects the form of an expression. Turning code into an academic paper that is not a "line by line transposition into English" or something similar would be "transformative" (and also pass the other tests, like non-competitive, etc.) and therefore fair use.

Remember, private copyright lawsuits are allowed only because Congress says they are. Congress cannot pass a law that infringes on freedom of speech (well, they can, but the courts will usually strike those laws down). Copyright law enforcement has been upheld within limits. When free speech is exercised in the way I described it, "freedom of speech" is the order of the day.

Let's start with Russia.

DRM means authenticating through a server (someplace), correct?

DMCA defines a "technological measure which limits access" (what we informally refer to as "DRM") in 1201(a)(3)(b) as

a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Authenticating through a server is one way to implement DRM, but there are many other methods, where DMCA is every bit as applicable.

the DMCA is a thing... but can they do anything if they don't know about you copying/transcoding files to your phone or tablet or whatever?

Generally no, and especially with offline DRM schemes like what DVDs use, the copyright holder can't detect when you read the DVD, so right, you won't get caught. But of course the worst part of DMCA is not that it just prohibits doing things, but prohibits trafficking in tools for doing things. So the software for working with DVD DRM is illegal to create, distribute, sell, etc which means I-know-nothing-about-computers grandma would have to go off the mainstream.

If grandma is a punk rock computer user, no problem. But most people these days apparently want to go to a centralized authority (probably within their own legal jurisdiction) and just click to install things, and any centralized authority is going to be at least somewhat vulnerable to trafficking charges. Or if they solve that problem by being outside US jurisdiction, they might have payment processing issues.

Again, you're not wrong that you can do these things with DVDs (I see how being able to watch them on an unconnected-to-internet bus definitely helps, compared to proprietary streaming) but there are barriers keeping it from being a general solution for everyone. Media without DRM lacks this problem.

Freedom of speech.

I'm putting my bets on 2 or 3. 4 is also a possiblity, with or without 2 or 3.

1 won't happen merely because of a lawsuit, but it might happen if Trump decides to put eleventy-billion-percent tarrifs on the UK in response.

One can dream, but I do think that any channel that uses public airwaves should be fined for any lie it tells and have its broadcast license revoked over a certain number. Outright lies are far worse than bias.

LLMs need a filter that looks at the "final output" for signs of unwanted output and prevents unwanted output from ever being seen.

Example:

If you design your LLM's guardrails so it won't encourage suicide, you need a fallback in case the guardrails fail:

Put an output filter that will recognize outputs that are likely to encourage suicide, and take some action like sending the prompt and reply to a human for vetting. Yes, a human vetting the final answer may let some undesired output through, but it's better than no vetting if your goal is to run a "safe" LLM, for whatever definition you choose of "safe."

If you (the person/company running the LLM) want to be "super safe" you can have the filter abort the conversation entirely.