... Our National Nightmare is OVER!

Well noted.

Your (or any other "employee's") health (mental and physical) or death is of no concern to the oligarchs.
Your corpse will be pushed aside, and you will be replaced by another moist robot until it, too dies.
You are not valued by your owners^w employers beyond their ability to become richer through your exploitation.

Does that sound about right?

If it requires cables, is it really quantum teleportation?

I'm pretty sure that word means something else...

And, I'm not really interested enough to either RTFA or RTFS

A TV Set?
Now that's a term I haven't heard in a long, long time.

NO. But, being just a bad as humans is not a validation of generative AI.

You *will* get factional maps. Which ever faction is most represented in the AI training data will, factionally, influence the regurgitive map.

Factual maps, however, will be superior ;-)

Unsurprisingly, it's also been 28 years since I last used WordPad.

The new rules, details of which have not been previously reported, could extend launch timelines in the world's No.2 smartphone market and lead to losses in business from pre-installed apps for players including Samsung, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Apple.

They say this like it's a bad thing.

If you're trying to do "serious" AI on a laptop, you've already demonstrated your lack of general intelligence... so well done, AI bot.

Of course.

The OP wanted to know what law (not necessarily for the complaint, but the previous OPs post), so I provided one possibility. That's why I said it might be a good place to start. Not definitive, not a precident, not right, not wrong, but a possibility.

Well, the suit claims "The conspiracy Plaintiffs challenge is unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act" (page 4, lines 23-24).That might be a good place to start.

The actual rents charged (as specified in individual lease agreements) are probably fairly reasonably considered private. Advertised rental rates are not, but actual rates may differ from advertised rates considerable.

Consumer protection laws often dictate how different corporate entities can set prices. Natural competition between different companies should result in lower average prices, while collusion will artifically raise them. Reading published ads and setting prices *after* is ok. Robber-Baron-1 calling up Robber-Baron-2, Robber-Baron-3, Robber-Baron-4 and Robber-Baron-5 and all agreeing on minimum prices before-hand may not be, though I'm no lawyer, don't play one on T.V. and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express anytime recently.

Maye they can get Lennart Poettering to take a look at it. I mean, what's the worst he could do?

"Updates are distributed as a complete image, like they are today with Android or iOS. "

Well, if those are considered examples of Images based systems, then I can't think of any better proof of why *not* to do this. I'm not about to RTFA, but IOS updates are only successful because Apple rabidly controls the hardware. Google does not control Android hardware, and as such Android updates are among the most nororiously farked in the industry. Slow up dates? Lack of updates? That's android for you. If either of those scenarios are likely outcomes of non-package based update systems, then, whoo-boy, keep that nasty shit to yourselves,

Sigh. Being the third wheel sucks.

I'm almost more concerned that you can't recall "how many times [you've] been sitting silently in a room with no windows in the middle of no where on the map." Is, uh, is there something you find particlularly rewarding in this? :-)