For those unfamiliar, "DRM" refers to Digital Rights Management. Basically, DRM tech prevents you from playing back any content on devices that have not been explicitly authorized to do so by large media companies. Of course, free playback still exists, but these days, most officially distributed movies, TV shows, games, etc., all involve some form of DRM unless explicitly advertised as DRM-free. (FTFY)

Dutch motorist Tim Hanssen (double s, ends on single n) wrote a blogpost about it. And here it is: https://nippur.nl/tim-versus-politie-algoritme/ (go find a translator als je geen Nederlands kunt lezen)

Linking to a random international site (jpost) that quotes (but not links) another random site (HLN, not exactly know for its fine journalism) without trying to find the original is beyond bad journalism.

https://github.com/SamiaKabir/ChatGPT-Answers-to-SO-questions

That "solution" is wrong. It would mean that anyone (and any corporation) could get away with "oh it's not my fault, we're not liable, it's an open source component that did it".

The law should help corporations take their responsibilities (i.e. help fix open source components) without putting the burden on devs that are not paid by these corporations.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249885 , principal author is Daniel Ayoubkhani (ORCID: 0000-0001-6352-0394). (Why is Slashdot citing Yahoo citing The Telegraph?)

(See subject)

I'm using Unicode to get an upside down text. (Unfortunately, Slashdot seems not to want to show it, but see here https://www.fileformat.info/convert/text/upside-down.htm?text=upsidedown). As a bonus, it is a passwordless AP but uses a modern way of upside-down-ternet (see https://openoffice.nl/2016/01/01/upside-downternet/ for a howto) to flip any non-https-page.

As this links to a paid publication by Elsevier, I can't say anything about it. I can, however, link to another article, only months ago, and it's debunking (latter in Dutch, sorry) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers and https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/ernstige-zwakheden-in-alarmerend-onderzoek-naar-vliegende-insecten/

As said, I can't say anything about the Elsevier article and frankly, I don't think it serves a purpose to link to articles we can't read. Thinking of it, this would make a great business model: perform research with alarming outcome; get paywalled article linked on Slashdot... Profit!

Mass extinction in a few thousand years and a single species responsible - I see a parallel. It isn't mass extinction exactly, but mankind has caused quite some disturbance in both land and sea ecosystems already. A few thousand years should be plenty enough to cause real mass extinction.

The original article at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/neil-young-trademarks-new-audio-format-20120403 Rolling Stone says that Pono is "a revolutionary new audio music system" and "a modern-day iPod for the 21st Century". I'm not sure why that would include a new audio format - although Rolling Stone's URL seems to suggest that. I have seen this article misquoted all around the globe, though - everyone pointing at the same old Rolling Stone page, some mentioning "new audio formats", others mentioning "patents" for a new MP3-format - etc etc..
I'd say hoax. Educated hoax, with press releases and trademarks and the lot, but still a hoax. Wake me up when the Pono system is for sale at the Neil Young Store.

Tequila
Ouzo
Vodka
Water
etcetera. (I voted "functional names").

A good test should include battery life.

You don't understand. These countries (I live in the Netherlands, which has the same sort of system) have some history in getting their health care right. Negotiating how much various procedures should cost, how much the patient should pay, this is just business as usual: it happens every year.

Inflation as the only tool for a government to regulate it's health care costs feels a bit simplistic. In fact, it's a ridiculous idea, given the abundance of other options our government seems to have. I can only think that your misguided view is the result of coming from the hard & cold background of a runaway-free-market health care system, where there is actually NO options to get things right (it's a free market, right?) -- so the only thing you can think of is even worse than that.

Also, you forgot an important aspect. In our system, there's more money available for prevention, simply because that will keep general health care costs lower. There's hardly a place where prevention will fit in a true market driven system. (Yeah, your insurance company could have prevention programs, but an insurance company without these expensive programs would be cheaper, right? Exit prevention.)

... inventing a new battery, taming hurricanes, defeating disease... attracting lightning, tunneling it into the autoclave... Frankenstein! Just like he did when he managed the Windows codebase.

This is already European Law (which must be implemented in local laws in al member states). Once sold whithin the EU, you're free to resell your license.

The problem is in the details: if you buy software (i.e. a license to use it), you normally also get a bunch of other rights, like access to updates, maybe even the right to call someone. The law doesn't say that these rights are also transferrable (or transferred). So in most licenses, there's still plenty of "you cannot do this and that (resell, for example), or you will loose the right to such and so".

But the resale of the license to plainly use the software cannot be forbidden by contract in the EU.