Here's your comment:

I hate Donald Trump, but I agree with this particular decision.

That wasn't hard.

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?

Legally or morally.

I'm really surprised how many people around here think it does. It doesn't require consent when a human does it, and it doesn't require consent when a computer does it.

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.

Scaping has never been stealing, of course. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, even with all of the whinging people are doing about AI training data.

The giant brass cojones on Google for suing over that, though...

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.