What the subject said.

It is opt-in if you write your robots.txt file that way. Just disallow * and allow the bots you want. The site owner gets the choice.

Reading the question, this is not an array navigation problem it is a flow control problem. My first solution would be to use recursion (which is a concept many new CS students struggle with) to walk the path. The course's "suggested solution" instead uses a while loop, which is maybe a simpler concept, but also easy to mess up and less elegant in my opinion. Who among us has not ended up with an infinite loop the first time we test a piece of code using either concept, much less when we are limited to pencil and paper rather than an IDE that calls out our mistakes for us?

Why didn't they layoff the people who created this?

True. They killed AngularDart specifically because they wanted to use it for internal development only... :-(

Aside from the cost of the actual Mac you need to build your iOS app on, it costs about $1000 more for me to release an app on the app store. I will of course need to pay the $99 developer fee, but in addition I will need to register a corporation if I don't want to publish the app under my personal legal name and basically dox myself. In California the minimum annual corporate filing fee is $800. In addition I will need to file taxes for that corporation annually and the annual tax preparation fees will easily exceed $100. So all that together is going to be over $1000 annually to publish a free iOS app on the App Store. Publishing an Android app on the Play store is free as in beer. Apple is not, has not been, and likely will never be developer friendly.

Unfortunately, the locked photos are only stored locally, which negates one of the prime advantages of Google Photos (cloud sync). There's no technical reason they couldn't sync your encrypted photos to the cloud the same as all your other photos and maintain their privacy, which means the hobbling was probably due to overzealous legal concerns. Google doesn't want to be hosting "bad" content on their servers even if they can't actually see it.

That seems to clear it up then.

This would make posting a complaint to facebook about your service rifle jamming into a crime because the information could be used by a foreign government to aid in a potential military conflict with a power using that model of service rifle. I think the wording of "providing services" rather than "providing aid" is important in the law and implies a direct rather than indirect relationship between the service provider and the foreign government.

The differed prosecution agreement makes me think maybe the govt wasn't sure they could win the case and the defendants didn't think they could afford to lose the case, so they agreed to a settlement. We know prosecutors will often overcharge in the hope of getting a settlement in a case they don't think they can win outright. This is based solely on watching Law & Order and Billions. Sounds like overzealous prosecution to me. :-(

Didn't read the article or the law, but the summary says that they provided services to a UAE company and it is illegal to provide services to a foreign government. Government != company. What was illegal about what they did?

Okay. Not funny. But also the best first comment I've ever seen.

Agreed. Sites that exercise editorial control over the content posted should not get 230 protection. Sites that do not should have the liability shifted to the poster as 230 does.

Example: A newspaper that chooses to print (or not print) my letter to the editor is exercising editorial control and should be help liable (along with me) if it contains defamatory or otherwise illegal speech. A telephone network that does not exercise editorial control over what I say in any way should not be liable for any of the speech that occurs on that telephone network.

Another way to say this: If you take responsibility for the speech on your system then you are responsible for the speech on your system.