I am not familiar with LightBurn, but your best bet would likely be to tweak Wine for specific compatibility with LightBurn, or get the developer of LightBurn to tweak LightBurn's source code for specific compatibility with Wine.. WMI Support should be completely unnecessary to talk to external hardware. A Windows application only needs WMI support to query management information of your local operating system or computer... It is actually very suspicious that a desktop application is touching WMI, as it is for system management only.

They don't have comprehensive MS-level DCOM compatibility which also limits WMI, and still neither is robust.

It is highly doubtful Wine is ever getting full support for either without embedding actual Microsoft DLLs.

Also, Windows USB drivers / USB support doesn't work with Wine either. If you are interfacing with hardware within Wine emulation -- then your options are essentially limited to classical serial ports.

They don't.. They're blocking companies from recruiting - not people from moving. Taiwan doesn't block the taiwanese from going wherever. Mainland China does by requiring permits for travel inside their own country. You are not free to travel wherever you want in China, just because you are Chinese and have a household in China, and the taiwanese need another special permit to travel and move around there.

Taiwan largely encourages the taiwanese to live/work in China while strictly restricting who can come in from mainland China to Taiwan.
Their tech workers are an exception apparently. You are valuable for national security reasons, so it would seem that it is a crime for people who work for another company to be suspected of trying to recruit.

I talk with developers, so the end users don't have to.

The only people with a true case against OpenAI would be those who DONATED

No. After the donation has completed: Both the money and the results are dedicated to the public for the furtherance of that charitable purpose. The original contributors themselves are not the only stakeholders. After that contribution making is completed - the purpose it is required to be used for benefits the public; that is what charity is. That is also why the Donators get a tax break. After that money has been donated; You don't even have control over the details of how it will be spent (Unless there is a contract at the time the donation is made; an agreement making it a conditional or restricted donation. In which case they can also be sued for misappropriating restricted funds.).

The Public as a whole is harmed by Yanking the donations - And the assets, or profitable property, and profits those donations were utilized in order to create.

That's rich coming from Paxton

Why are you supporting Samsung by smearing the character of the one prosecuting them in the middle of a discussion about this case, and the article has nothing to do with an attorney's personal life history? The state attorney to a case represent the people, not themself. Do you work for Samsung? Did they pay you, or what?

Opposing counsel members' alleged but unproven adultery or unproven historic crimes, and other complaints don't have anything to do with the case or discussion of an article about Samsung getting ordered by the court. They don't make it a wrong decision or action for the AG to pursue, or bad in any way.

Does it? Warning labels are a staple of modern American life,

Warning labels are a stable, perhaps, but only on tangible goods that pose a medical risk. When we are talking about speech: Items such as books or websites. You have a constitutional 1st Amendment right to free speech which includes the right to exclude anybody else's speech. Including warnings from a government, from the content of your speech.

The solution probably is a content-neutral warning mandate that new Cell phones come with a warning on the packaging, and a requirement for a conspicuous arning badge of specified text, colors, and font size required to be fully opaque, as durable as the display surface, and attached permanently above or below the screen. Since the phone is a physical good; a warning can be attached without including it as part of the speech content.

Also; they can specify a standard for apps and cell phones that after 15-minutes continuous screen time; access to apps other than direct messages, emergency communications, phone, or person to person text would be restricted with a mandatory timeout. A mostly content-neutral time and usage amount restriction with exemptions only for emergency communications.

they should force any website or online ad platform that does A/B testing to get positive consent for each test from their human test subjects

You can't prevent companies from market testing. That one would have little chance of holding up in court either.

I thought testing on humans already required consent but what do I know.

Medical experimentation on humans requires specific informed consent and is governed by strict safety regulations.

Facebook A/B testing is merely experimenting with other versions of the project to see how it will work with their customers, or if their customers will accept or reject it. Treatment is applied to their product, and not humans, so there is no testing on humans..

While customers already agreed to it contractually; the sign up terms provided Facebook the right to change any part of the service, and you are not guaranteed to receive a level of service, nor the same service or experience as any other user. It's not quite the same as if you purchased a piece of hardware. Apple cannot swap out your iPhone with a new one of slightly different physical shape for experimental purposes without permission, because you already purchased it, but they absolutely can do phased or random-population rollouts of different betas, software updates, or experimental versions To test their product, and what kind of feedback versions of their product receive.

This is a BS distinction. Pure Elemental mercury in its liquid form has low absorption, but it is still highly poisonous and a major hazard.

You cannot actually avoid alcohol. A lot of foods contain it naturally.

This is as dumb as claiming you can't avoid Arsenic; a lot of foods contain it naturally, so we shouldn't ban food companies from adding more.

You absolutely can avoid Alcohol. Which is mainly defined as taking food or drink that deliberately contains ethyl Alcohol in significant quantities. Your failure to make fine distinctions between a 0.2% of trace Alcohols within one's diet does not mean there isn't a distinction between trace Alcohol content versus drinking.

And the studies about drinking and consuming Alcohols are not about trace-level products in the diet - which is not drinking to consume at a normal level less than 2 grams a day. The impact of such would require a separate body of research.

Theres actually a better reason to drink in moderation.

That is perfectly fine to understand that there may be a risk, even an unreasonable or significant risk, and to assume that risk anyway because it's fun.

There are also people who drink who seek validation for their conduct as if they are not taking a risk that can be a source of bias, and those people would include researchers Or people attempting to summarize researchers.

my suspicion is you are detached from normal society
Exactly how many drinks did you have last night? I'm gonna guess a few too many.

Alcohol consumption is a highly popular entertainment activity in the US.
The last thing anybody wants to be told Is an activity they highly enjoy is a danger to them in ANY amount.
Drinking lightly or in moderation is not enough to mitigate the risk.

Because of this; there is likely an Undue influence by people who drink within the organization.

The first stage of grief is denial, and attempt to rationalize a way that it isn't true;
Even if you are a researcher, or a person in charge of studies and papers, and
you should know better.

My immediate suspicion is that there are people conducting research or decisions for that organization who are at that stage.

If you believed your computer was talking to you 10 years ago they would have locked you up.

Not really.. broadcasting obviously delusional beliefs might raise suspicions and eventually result in investigation.
You don't get locked up if you just believe your computer tells you things when it didn't.
You get locked up if you believe your computer tells you to do things, and you must do them, and those things hurt people.

Even 10 years ago - locking people up is not based on having delusions or mere signs of mental illness. You can only be forcibly committed initially after 2 licensed physicians initially certify they confirmed you are a serious danger to yourself and others In an emergency they can lock people up for a few days based on that criteria, and locking people up for longer requires proof of specific legal criteria.

It's probably close to 50%. And every single one of them is completely delusional.

Well 100% of the human population is delusional. Having a delusion is just not a psychosis.
Having a delusion 30% of the population has isn't even an abnormality. That's called being
deceived by ChatGPT, and the way ChatGPT is presented. And it's kind of OpenAI's fault how
they have structured the user interface and way the responses are displayed to make it look like
text-chat with a normal human.

A person with Psychosis has a pervasive distortion in their view of reality, so it's not just about
having delusions or having some specific number or extent of delusions.

A human communicating with a person who develops psychosis as a direct result of the communication is blamed, and investigated for wrongdoing.

Well that is wishful thinking, Or this may be part of a psychosis on your part.

There is no law on the books that causes person A speaking to person B to have committed a violation merely because the conversation causes person B develops a psychosis or causes delusions, emotional upsets, or other unwanted affects.

There are some laws against person A abusing person B (Violence, Harassment, Intimidation, or Coercive controlling behaviors), or deliberately encouraging person B with the aim for them to commit illegal or harmful acts, including self harm. Plus some specific statutes protecting children and elderly - vulnerable groups against certain abuses. But so far there is a lack of a case of anyone for being prosecuted with a charge of "Causing a psychosis due to the content of conversations."

And of course by conversation alone.. If that is even possible would be difficult to show, since you can't remember for sure what conversations happened, And a person who experienced a psychosis would by definition be an unreliable witness.