Perhaps it's time to apply the same methods here that helped deal with spam back in the day: start threatening the ISPs that don't deal with users infected with proxies with having all netblocks belonging to them blocked unconditionally. That works by shifting the complaints from people the ISP doesn't get paid by (the services being scraped) to people it does (it's users who can't access services). We even have the tech needed already: DNS-based RBLs. Condemn providers who host scrapers who don't provide useful user-agent strings or don't comply with robots.txt to the same fate.

We don't need regulations to do this. The services belong to the people who run them, and they've got pretty much free rein to take actions to protect themselves. Is it severe? Yes. Is it disproportionate? Also yes. But then, to avoid it they just have to do one easy thing: not be assholes. If they can't manage that, are we obligated to shoulder the costs of letting them freely be assholes? IMO, no.

They don't. They think of them as something that happens on their computer, with only them involved. They know, in the abstract, that there's a server somewhere, but the implications of that don't really sink in. The same problems applied to e-mail since forever, but everyone dismissed it as something that didn't matter since they didn't use email. Now, though, we're seeing the result of the third-party doctrine starting to hit home in ways the average person does need to care about thanks to the ubiquity of the cloud. Chatbot logs, search histories, email records, Flock cameras, Ring doorbell cameras, ALPRs, documents stored in cloud services, social media histories, messaging service histories... everything involving records stored long-term in the hands of third parties is starting to affect ordinary people in ways they can't ignore. I suspect at some point the law is going to have to change.

They're still playing the "Try to get IBM to pay us to go away." game. It didn't work the first time around. This one's even more futile because this particular argument was dealt with during the original case and IBM proved that the code they contributed to Linux wasn't code belonging to Project Monterrey at all but completely different code IBM wrote themselves for a different product. But I suppose, given the people behind this, lack of pattern recognition skills is a given.

Didn't Amazon remove the mandatory arbitration clause a while back because too many users were using it, making Amazon have to spend too much money and time on arbitration? Or was that another large Internet vendor?

Inglis has obviously never read a single one of Asimov's robots stories, or he would never have uttered that statement. Every single story was about how the 3 Laws fail to work, often in ways that endanger humans.

Yes, as if nobody could feed some photos into a genAI chatbot and have it generate a video of that face performing those actions on command. Right, nobody could possibly do that, not in our lifetime... wait a minute, I'm getting an update from the studio...

The worst part isn't that now anyone who can get a few pictures of your face off the Internet can log in on your account. The worst part is that you can't recover from it. You can't change your face so once they've got it all you can do is disable this feature completely, and hope Google doesn't re-enable it.

"So, we tried the biggest node we could find but the die came out too small, we had to find a bigger process node to make it big enough we could handle it to fit it in the package and attach it."

The manufacturers may win by arguing that "is recycleable" in the law doesn't mean "is recycled" which is what the state wants to enforce. And they'd be right. If you read "is recycleable" as "made from material that can be recycled", which is the right reading at the manufacturing level, then the label is accurate: the containers are made of recycleable material. The counter-argument is that the law isn't requiring truth about what the material itself is but requiring truth about the container as finally delivered to the consumer. Yogurt containers, for example, may be made of recycleable materials but, as delivered to the consumer, are not recycleable because they're contaminated with food product and will not be accepted by recycling programs. Most consumers assumed that if the container is marked with the "chasing arrows" symbol, that means they can put it in the recycling bin and it'll be recycled. The manufacturers, the plaintiffs here, deliberately contribute to that misunderstanding by their advertising and promotional material about recycleables, and they know what their products are going to be used for so they know it's going to result in the containers not being recycleable.

It's going to come down to how the CA lawyers argue the case. As usual, if they let the plaintiffs frame the case they're going to lose.

It's designed to produce plausible or most likely outputs, not correct outputs. It may be honest, but it's certainly not a mistake.

Hopefully Google won't hamstring this by forcing you to enable "install apps from any source" setting to use non-Google app stores. If I use an alternate app store I don't want to let apps from just anywhere be installed, I only want apps from that app store to be installed. Apps from anywhere else I want to continue to block.

That's actual stock, not options. Incentive stock options (the kind executives receive) don't count as income until you sell the stock after exercising the options. Take out a loan against that stock and you've got dollars in your bank account you can spend but no income to report. Now, suppose the loan's structured so that, as long as the stock is worth enough to cover the principal plus accumulated interest, you don't have to make payments on the loan. Do this through a trust so your heirs don't have to worry about repayment either. Every year now you get the full dollar value of your stock awards in cash without having to declare any income. Possibly even without having to exercise the options, depending on how friendly you are with the lender.

Any router running SNMP or a web interface configured to listen on the external (WAN) port should be considered defective and replaced (or reflashed to sane non-braindead firmware). Home networks don't need SNMP at all, and business networks not using enterprise-grade equipment probably don't need it with write enabled. The only access to the router from the WAN side should be SSH using public-key authentication, and that only if you absolutely need it (you probably don't). That solves the vast majority of problems.

Russia, China and Iran trying to inflame the AI data-center debate is like pouring 5 gallons of gasoline on an oil-refinery fire: technically you did make it worse but by such a small amount nobody's going to notice.

If businesses were having problems hiring people in these fields, you'd think that they'd be a) offering higher pay and better benefits to make themselves more attractive to workers, and b) scrupulously avoiding filtering out qualified candidates for no good reason. Yet we don't see them doing either one. Tells me they want to use "shortage" as an excuse to move work overseas or bring in cheap labor from elsewhere.

We pay nurses, doctors, pharmacists, teachers and such crap wages, overwork them, force them to deal with idiotic gig-app scheduling, is it any wonder nobody wants to go into those fields? You have ICE showing up at construction sites arresting or scaring off half or more of the crew, pay them crap wages, and wonder why you can't get construction laborers? You outsource aircraft maintenance to the cheapest firm around and wonder why nobody wants to be an aircraft mechanic? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.